MA S TER 
NEGA  TIVE 

NO.  92-80497-20 


MICROFILMED  1992 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the 
"Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project" 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COP^IRIGHT  STATEMENT 

The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  -  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or  other 
reproductions  of  copyrighted  material... 

Columbia  University  Library  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to 
accept  a  copy  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


AUTHOR: 


COULTER,  CORNELIA  C. 


TITLE: 


RETRACTIO  IN  THE  AMB 
SIAN  AND  PALATINE... 

PLACE: 

BRYN  MAWR,  PA. 

DA  TE : 

1911 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 


Master  Negative  U 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MICROFORM  TARGET 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


I-  J. N  j.u    I ^^  r  r< \3 .»:: m- *t o / ... i.)  - o 


I  wrrt..!.^  • 


\mJ  ••• 


-^• 


i.~7 


ID5MYCG92-B99A 
CC:;9665   BLT.Tim 


CP s  pau 

PC  SB 

GIG 
G40 
050  0 
:IGG  1 


L :  ©ng 
PDx  191 .1./ 


DCF- 
INT 


RTYPsa 
CSC." 
GPC: 
REP: 


•    »  Wb.    •«»•   •«■ 


S"r :  p 
MODS 
D 1 0 : 
CPI  sO 


OR.'!     POL:      DM:       RRs 
.1.21091 
MrxK>-  I  cNNC 
Qll=^lb.B9  vol.  10 
Coulter  H  Cornelia  Catlin , ~ I d 1885 


FRNs 
BNRs 
F 1'  C  s  G 
FSI  JiG 
COL  s 


MS 


EL  s  u 


ATC: 
CON :  b 
ILC: 
EMLs 


AD: 02- 11 -92 
UD: 02- 11 -92 


1  I  s  0 

N3 


BSE 


r 


ij 


245  IG   Retract^it :i. o  in    the  Ariitaro:-;ian  and  Palatine  recensions  of  Plau tus- I  hCmi c 
o  f  o r  m  ]  ;  -'•  '  b a  s  1 1 1 d y  o  f  the  P e r  s a  ,  P o e? n i-i  1  ii  b  m  P b e ti d o  1  ti s  ,  S  t  i  c: h u s  and  T r  i  n u m m 


260 
3GQ 


B  .^  =■•■  I  c  b  y  C  D  I"  n  e  1  i  a  C  a  t  D..  i  n  (2  o  u  1 1  e  r  . 

Bryn  Mawr  ^  Pa  -  w  =  I  bBryn  Mawr  CcO.lege,  -101911 


P 


I 


118  p^:::^  I  c23  cm 


"J- 90    0  Bryn    Hawr     college?    monographs.     Moriograpl-i    ser  ies.,  ==  I  vvol 


It     ft 


^GA 


B  i  bl  i  o  g  r*  a  p  1 1  y  s     p  »     1  1 5 1  1 8 


<f::.  G  O    1 0       F'  1  a  u  t  u  s  ,     T  i  t  u  s    M  a  c  c  i  i4  s 


!    r\  t"-" 


1J\ 


RL  IN 


I  on  02-- 1  I  -9^ 


FILM     SIZE: 


^  YO 


'^'V> 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 
REDUCTION     RATIO:       ^^^ 


IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    lA    (HA;   IB     IIB 

DATE     FILMED: P3_l^_iQ_Q2.__     INITI  ALS__^A>XA;^a^ 

FILMED  BY:    RESEARCH  PUBLICATIONS.  INC  WOODBRinriR.  C.T 


1 

r 

Association  for  information  and  Image  Management 

1100  Wayne  Avenue,  Suite  1100 
Silver  Spring,  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

1234         56         789        10       n 


nil 


iiiiliiiiiiiiiliiiiiii::^^ 

I  1    Tf  1  I     _  ^^^^-^y^-^™-  I  I  I  I  1  .^T  I  I  I  I  I  I  II  I 


Inches 


I 


1.0 


1.25 


■  10 

|63 

tiS. 


I.I     i 


2.8 

13.2 

3.6 

4.0 


lUIAU 


1.4 


II  I  1 1  I  I 

4 

2.5 


12       13       14       15    mm 

ii|iili|iili[iililiil 


2.2 


2.0 


1.8 


1.6 


TTT 


llilllllllllilllllllll 


I   I   I 


I 


MflNUFflCTURED   TO   fillM   STRNDfiRDS 
BY   fiPPLIED   IMRGE,     INC. 


Bryn  Mavvr  Collhge 
Monographs 


Monograph  Series,  Vol.  X 


ietractatio 


IN  THE 


Anibrosian  and  Palatine  Recensions 

of  Plautus 


A  STUDY  OF  THE   PERSA,   POENULUS,   PSEUDOLUS,   STICHUS 

AND  TRINUMMUS 


BY 


CORNELIA   CATLII^    COULTER 


Bryn  Mawr,  Pennsylvania,  U.  S.  A.,  November,  1911 


BRYN    MAWR   COLLEGE 


Bryn  Mawr  College 
Monographs 


Monograph  Series,  Vol.  X 


ANNOUNCEMENT 


The  Bivn  Mawr  College  Monographs  are  issued  in  two  series  : 
the  first,  the  Monograph  Series,  contaiuing  articles  that  appear 
here  for  the  first  time  ;  the  second,  the  Reprint  Series,  contain- 
ing reprints  of  articles  that  have  appeared  in  other  journals. 

The  monographs  are  edited  by  a  committee  of  the  Faculty 
of  Bryn  Mawr  College,  consisting  at  present  of  President  M. 
Carey  Thomas,  ex  officio;  Professor  Elmer  P.  Kohler,  chairman; 
Professor  Arthur  Leslie  Wheeler,   and  Professor  Carleton  Brown. 


Retractatio 


IN  THE 


Ambrosian  and  Palatine  Recensions 

of  Plautus 

A   STUDY  OF   THE   PERSA,    POENULUS,   PSEUDOLUS,    STICHUS 

AND  TRINUMMUS 

BY 

CORNELIA  CATLIN   COULTER 


Bryn  Mawr,  Pennsylvania,  U.  S.  A.,  November,  1911 


BRYN    MAWR    COLLEGE 


CONTENTS 


M 


_  PAGE 

Introduction. 

1)  The  Sources  of  the  Inconsistencies  and  Contradictions  in  the  Text 

of  Plautus. 

a)  Freedom  in  the  Handling  of  the  Greek  Original  .        .  1 

b)  "  Plautine  Carelessness "      ......  6 

c)  Retractatio g 

d)  Interpolatio 20 

2 )  The  Manuscripts  of  Plautus 23 

I.    Persa 27 

II.    POENULUS 42 

III.  PSEUDOLUS 67 

IV.   Stichus g3 

V.   Trinummus 97 

Conclusion 209 

Bibliography 215 


INTEODUCTIOK 


I 


The  twenty-one  plays  of  Plautus,  in  the  form  in  which 
they  have  come  down  to  us,  present  contradictions  and 
inconsistencies   which   must   impress   even   an   uncritical 
reader,   and  which  demand  explanation  at  the  hands  of 
the  Plautine  scholar.     For  some  defects  we  must  hold 
Plautus  himself  directly  responsible.     We  know  that  he 
wrote  in  an  age  of  rude  technique,  and  that  he  allowed 
himself  great  liberty  in  adapting  Greek  comedies  for  the 
Koman   stage.       Terence    (Adel    Prol.    6-10)    says   that 
Plautus,  in  presenting  his  Commorient es,  a  version  of  the 
I.vpa7ro0uj^<TKovTe^  of   Diphilus,    left    out   a  whole   scene 
(eum  Plautus  locum  reliquit  integrum),  and  the  prologue 
of  the  Casina  (1.  65)  warns  the  audience  that  Euthynicus 
will  not  appear  upon  the  stage  because  Plautus  noluit. 
One  of  the  greatest  living  authorities  on  Plautus  '  has 
therefore  assumed  that  at  least  two  of  the  plays  owe  their 
faulty  construction  to  Plautus  himself ;  that  it  was  he  who 
changed  the  Casina  from  a  finished  comedy  to  a  farce, 
and  made  the  Stichus  end  in  an  uproarious  song  and 
dance. 

Terence  also  tells  us  that  Plautus  combined  the  plots 
of  two  or  more  Greek  comedies  into  one  play.  For  this 
blending  of  originals  (technically  called  contamination 
from  the  Terentian  verb  contaminare) ,  Terence  frequently 
justifies   himself.     In   one   such    defense    (Heaut,    Prol. 

*F.  Leo,  Plautinische  Forschungen,  Berlin,  1895,  pp.  150  ff.  Cf. 
Leo,  Plautinische  Cantica,  pp.  105  ff.,  in  Alhandl.  Odtt.  Qes.  1896- 
1897;   Leo  in  Nachr.   Gott.   Qes.   1902,  pp.  375  ff. 


RETEACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


20-21)  he  says  that  he  has  good  models  for  this  practice 
(honorum  exemplo),  and  in  another  (And.  Prol.  18-19) 

he  mentions  Naevium  Plautum  Ennium quos  hic 

noster  auctores  JiaheL  Plautus  himself  does  not  hint  at 
the  existence  of  contaminatio  in  his  plays ;  the  extant  pro- 
logues either  omit  the  name  of  the  Greek  original  alto- 
gether (e.  g..  Amphitruo,  Captivi),  or  they  give  only  one 
(e.  g..  the  "Efi-rropo^  of  Philemon  for  the  Mercator,  the 
Kapxv^ovLo^     for  the  Poenulus), 

But  a  study  of  the  plays  reveals  more  than  Plautus 
himself  disclosed.  When  we  find  in  a  comedy  of  Plautus 
two  lines  of  action,  the  one  completed  before  the  other 
begins,  and  the  second  not  a  necessary  outcome  of  the 
first;  when,  moreover,  we  find  the  two  actions  contra- 
dicting each  other  in  detail,  we  can  assume  that  the 
comedy  is  a  combination  of  two  Greek  plays.  As  an 
example   of   such  construction,   we  may  take   the  Miles 

Gloriosus. 

-  The  Greek  name  of  the  play  is  given  by  Plautus  (1.  86) 
as  the    \\Xa^(ov,  but  its  structure  precludes  the  idea  of 
a  single  original.     The  story,  briefly  told,  runs  as  follows : 
The  braggart  soldier  for  whom  the  play  is  named  has 
obtained  possession  of  Philocomasium,  the  sweetheart  of 
the  young  Athenian  Pleusicles,   and  has  carried  her  off 
to  his  house  in  Ephesus.     But  Pleusicles  follows  them 
to  Ephesus,  takes  up  his  quarters  in  the  house  next  door, 
and,  with  the  help  of  friends,  cuts  a  hole  in  the  dividing 
wall.     Through  this  hole  Philocomasium  can  pass  to  join 
her   lover    without    arousing    suspicion    in    the    soldier's 
household.     It  happens,  however,  that  her  custodian  Scele- 
drus   climbs  to  the   roof   one   day   and  sees   her   in  the 
embrace  of  Pleusicles.     To  hoodwink  Sceledrus,  a  story 
is  forthwith  concocted  by  the  conspirators,  that  the  twin- 


INTEODUCTION 


sister  of  Philocomasium,  who  is  her  exact  counterpart, 
has  come  to  Ephesus  with  her  lover,  and  is  staying  in 
the  adjoining  house.     Sceledrus  hears  the  story,  sees  the 
supposed  sister  come  out  of  the  other  house  at  the  very 
moment  when  he  is  sure  that  Philocomasium  is  safe  inside 
the  house  of  the  miles,  and  is  so  terrified  at  the  possible 
consequences  of  his  spying  that  he  decides  to  run  away. 
This  ends  the  second  act.     The  third  act  introduces  a 
new  plot  by  Pleusicles  and  his  allies,  which  is  carried  out 
in  the  fourth  and  fifth.     They  know  how  vain  the  soldier 
is  of  his  fascination  for  women.     They  therefore  send 
him  a  message  purporting  to  come  from  his  neighbor's 
wife,  who  is  dying  for  love  of  him.     The  soldier  is  flat- 
tered by  the  story  and  resolves  to  get  rid  of  Philoco- 
masium in  order  to  be  free  for  this  new  love.     So  he 
sends  the  apparently  reluctant  girl  back  to  Athens,  and 
attempts  to  visit  his  new  mistress — with  disastrous  results. 
The  story  clearly  introduces  two  plots,  both  concerned 
with  the  freeing  of  Philocomasium — the  trick  of  the  secret 
passage  and  the  fictitious  twin-sister,  and  the  trick  that 
depends  upon  the  vanity  of  the  soldier.     The  first  occu- 
pies Act  II.,  the  second  Acts  IV.  and  V.         The  con- 
nection  between   the   two   is   so   slight  that   they   might 
easily  come  from  two  diflFerent  Greek  plays.     Then  too, 
the  play  shows  confusion  and  contradiction  just  at  the 
point   where   these   two   stories   join.        In   11.    582-583 
Sceledrus  announces  his  intention  of  running  away;  but 
in  11.   816-817,  he  is  summoned  out  of  the  house,   and 
his  assistant  Lucrio  reports  that  he  has  drunk  himself  to 
sleep  in  the  cellar.     This  scene  (III.,  2)  repeats  the  situa- 
tion at  the  end  of  Act  II. ;  for  Lucrio,  like  Sceledrus,  cries 
out  that  his  master  will  punish  him  and  that  he  is  going 
to  get  out  of  the  way;  and  there  is  in  the  repetition  no 


4 


EETEACTATIO  IN  PLAUTUS 


INTEODUCTION 


increase  of  comic  effect.  We  notice,  too,  a  difficulty 
about  the  plan  of  the  three  conspirators.  In  11.  592  ff., 
the  session  which  has  been  going  on  inside  the  house  is 
to  be  continued;  in  11.  596  ff.,  the  three  meet  outside  the 
house,  apparently  to  consider  plans;  11.  612  ff.  (with 
which  11.  738-739,  749  agree)  would  lead  one  to  believe 
that  all  the  arrangements  had  been  completed  inside; 
but  at  1.  765  active  plotting  begins  again,  and  an  entirely 
new  scheme  is  evolved.  Then  at  11.  805  ff.  comes  the 
surprising  command  to  Pleusicles  not  to  call  Philoco- 
masium  by  name  in  the  presence  of  the  miles,  but  to 
address  her  as  Dicea — a  command  which  has  no  con- 
nection with  any  previous  discussion,  and  no  effect  upon 
the  later  action  of  the  play. 

Therefore  Leo  ^  seems  justified  in  his  conclusion  that 
the  Miles  Gloriosus  combines  material  from  two  Greek 
plays.  One  was  a  play  depending  upon  the  secret  passage 
and  the  story  of  the  twin-sister.  In  this,  the  slave  of  the 
miles  was  duped  and  made  off  in  terror  (Act  II.)  ; 
then  the  plan  of  the  three  friends  was  rehearsed,  as 
it  had  been  agreed  upon  inside  the  house  (11.  805-809)  ; 
and  the  miles  himself  was  deceived,  in  much  the  same 
way  as  his  slave  had  been  (cf.  11.  805  ff.).  In  the  other 
play,  the  'AXafwz/,  the  weaknesses  of  the  miles  were 
exposed  (Act  I.)  ;  a  plot  was  concocted  on  the  stage, 
to  strike  him  in  a  particularly  vulnerable  point  (11.  765- 
804)  ;  and  this  plot  was  carried  out  through  the  pretended 
wife  of  his  neighbor  and  her  slave  (Acts  IV.-V.). 

Leo's  analysis  of  the  Miles  marks  the  culmination  of 
more  than  sixty  years'  work  on  Plautus.  When  Grauert,^ 
in  1833,  investigated  the  plays  of  Terence  for  traces  of 

2  Leo,  Plant.  Forsch.,  pp.  161  flF. 

*  H.  Grauert,  Historische  u.  philologische  Analekten,  Mtinster,  1833, 

pp.    116-207. 


contaminatio,  he  quoted  Terence's  statements  about  Plau- 
tus, and  decided  that,  in  all  probability,  Plautus  had 
frequently  combined  plots;  but  he  thought  it  impossible 
to  push  the  question  further  without  scholia  on  Plautus 
or  a  fuller  knowledge  of  his  Greek  originals.  Ladewig,^ 
in  1841,  quoted  the  passage  from  the  Adelphoe  again, 
and  used  it  to  prove  that  the  Epidicus  was  "  contami- 
nated "  ;  the  next  year  ^  he  added  to  his  list  the  Bacchides, 
the  Captivi,  the  Miles,  the  Pseudolus,  the  Truculentus, 
and  (less  positively)  the  Stichus  and  the  Trinummus, 
Modern  scholars  would  disagree  with  Ladewig  on  some 
of  these  points;  they  would  probably  deny  contaminatio 
in  the  Bacchides  and  the  Captivi,  and  would  certainly 
affirm  it  in  the  Poenulus,  which  Ladewig  expressly  ex- 
cludes; but  they  are  indebted  to  him  for  first  advocating 
the  theory  and  for  using  it  to  account  for  contradictions 
and  weaknesses  in  the  plays.  The  danger  of  overem- 
phasizing this  phase  of  Plautus'  work  was  recognized 
by  Teuffel.®  He  denied  Ladewig's  assertions  of  contami- 
natio in  certain  plays,  but  pointed  out  that  it  would  be 
easy  to  assume  it  in  the  Poenulus,  which  shows  evidence 
of  two  independent  plots. 

During  the  next  twenty-five  years,  a  number  of  disser- 
tations and  articles  on  individual  plays  were  published. 
Ribbeck,'^  Ladewig,^  and  Schmidt  ^  did  good  work  on  the 

*Th.  Ladewig  in  Zeitschrift  fiir  Altertumsioissenschaft,  1841,  coll. 
1079-1099. 

•Ladewig,  Vber  den  Kanon  des  Volcatius  Sedigitus,  Neustrelitz, 
1842,   pp.   27  ff. 

•W.  Teuffel  in  Rhein  Mus.  8  (1853),  pp.  25-41  {=  Studien  u. 
Charakteristiken,^  pp.  315-352). 

'O.  Ribbeck  in  Rhein.  Mus.  12  (1857),  pp.  594-611  (especially 
pp.   606,   607).  "Ladewig   in  Philol.    17    (1861),   pp.  255-261. 

"F.  Schmidt  in  Fleckeisen's  Jahrh.,  Suppl-Bd.  9  (1877-1878), 
pp.  321-401. 


r 


I 


I . 


EETEACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


Miles,  and  Keinhardt/^  after  arguing  correctly  that  cer- 
tain difficulties— e.   g.,   in   the   Epidicus— could  not   be 
ascribed  to  contaminatio,  added  a  valuable  discussion  of 
the  Poenulus,     Goetz  ^^   devoted   a  section  of  his  work 
on  "  dittographies  "  to  a  review  of  Ladewig's  principles 
and  a  statement  of  his  own  position.     He  thought  that 
other  reasons  than  contaminatio  could  be  found  for  the 
smaller  inconsistencies  to  which  Ladewig  objected,  and 
he  was  on  the  whole  inclined  to  find  other  reasons  even 
where  the  difficulties  were  greater— for  instance,  in  the 
Poenulus.     Langen,^^  in  his  Plautinische  Studien,   also 
took  up   the   question   of  contaminatio,   arguing   against 
its  presence  in  the  Epidicus,  and  supporting  by  detailed 
analyses  the  theory  that  it  existed  in  the  Miles  and  the 
Poenulus.     The   last   two   plays   were   taken   as   certain 
examples  of  contaminatio  by  Leo,^^  in  the  third  chapter 
of  his  Plautinische  Forschungen,  and  received  such  mas- 
terly treatment  there  that  further  discussion  of  them  is 
almost  superfluous.     Leo  himself  suggested  ^*  that  further 
investigation  might  add   other  plays  to  the  list  of  the 
''certainly  contaminated,"  and  this  prophecy  will  probably 
be  fulfilled — in  fact,   in  the  case  of   the  Pseudolus,   it 
has   already  been  fulfilled.*^ 

Quorum  aemulari  exoptat  neglegentiam,  says  Terence 
(And,  20),  speaking  of  contaminatio  in  ISTaevius,  Plautus, 

*«L.  Reinhardt  in  Studemund's  Studien  auf  dem  Gehiete  des 
archaischen  Lateins  i.    (1873),  pp.  79-111. 

"G.  Goetz,  Ditto graphien  im  Plautustexte,  in  Acta  soc.  phil. 
Lips.  6    (1876),   pp.  315-322. 

^V.  Langen,  Plautinische  Studien,  Berlin,  1886. 

*^F.  Leo,  Plautinische  Forschungen,  Berlin,  1895. 

"Leo,  Plant.  Forsch.,  p.  153,  n.  2. 

"J.  Bierma,  Quaestiones  de  Plautina  Pseudolo,  Groningen,  1897; 
Leo  in  Nachr.  Qott.  Ges.  1903,  pp.  347-354. 


INTKODUCTIOK 


and  Ennius ;  and  "  Plautine  carelessness,"  in  a  broader 
sense,  has  become  proverbial.  The  most  detailed  investi- 
gation of  the  subject  has  been  made  by  Langen, ^^  and 
it  is  to  his  work  that  one  first  turns  for  examples.  Such 
are  the  contradictions  in  the  Amphitruo,  where  it  is 
expressly  stated  that  the  scene  of  the  play  is  in  Thebes 
(Prol.  97;  cf.  11.  376,  677,  1046),  but  at  the  same  time 
frequent  references  are  made  to  ''  the  harbor  "  (11.  149, 
164,  195,  etc.),  and  in  the  Epidicus,  where  the  price  of 
the  girl  is  given  as  fifty  minae  in  11.  364-368  (cf.  11.  52, 
141,  347),  but  as  thirty  minae  in  11.  703-705.  There  are 
inconsistencies  of  character,  too.  Through  the  first  four 
acts  of  the  Asinaria,  the  figure  of  Philaenium  appeals 
to  us;  in  the  closing  scene  it  can  arouse  only  disgust. 
An  equally  inconsistent  scene  occurs  at  the  close  of  the 
Bacchides,  where  the  two  indignant  fathers,  instead  of 
rescuing  their  sons  from  the  clutches  of  the  meretrices, 
themselves  ogle  these  corrupters  of  youth,  and  end  by 
going  into  the  house  to  join  the  merry-making.  Objec- 
tion is  sometimes  made  to  the  wordiness  of  certain  scenes, 
the  succession  of  quibbles  and  poor  jokes,  especially  when 
one  of  the  characters  in  the  dialogue  has  announced  that 
he  is  in  a  hurry.  In  the  Asinaria,  Act.  II.,  Scene  2, 
Leonida  comes  on  the  stage,  intent  upon  finding  Libanus 
and  imparting  to  him  some  important  news.  But  when 
they  meet,  they  thrust  and  parry  for  over  thirty  lines 
(11.  297-331)  before  Leonida  announces  his  business. 
And  Thesprio,  who  is  in  such  haste  that  he  can  not 
even  look  back  to  see  who  is  pulling  his  cloak,  nevertheless 
has  time  for  a  hundred  lines  of  repartee  and  gossip. 
{Epid,  I.,  1.)     Such  flaws  as  these  would  not  have  es- 


IS 


p.  Langen,  Plautinische  Studien,  Berlin,   1886. 


8 


EETEACTATIO    IN    PLAITTUS 


caped  the  notice  of  an  accurate  writer.  But  Plautua 
was  not  an  accurate  writer.  His  plays  were  composed 
hurriedly  for  immediate  production,  and  his  aim  was 
not  to  write  technically  perfect  drama,  but  to  furnish 
amusement  to  the  Koman  populace. 

The  aim  of  an  author  who  writes  for  the  stage  is 
necessarily  different  from  the  aim  of  one  who  writes  for 
the  reading  public,  and  the  history  of  a  piece  that  lives 
only  on  the  boards  must  differ  from  that  of  a  printed 
book.  Actors  and  stage-managers  naturally  make  excis- 
ions, additions,  and  alterations  to  suit  their  own  whims 
and  the  changing  taste  of  the  public ;  ^^  and  unless  there 
be  in  addition  a  recognized  standard  text,  these  changes 
are  likely  to  obscure  the  original  form  of  the  play. 
Such  a  fate  is  what  we  might  expect  for  Plautus,  if 
his  comedies  were  performed  after  his  death.  And  that 
his  plays,  like  those  of  j^aevius,  Pacuvius,  and  Accius, 
were  given  at  a  later  date,  we  can  infer  from  Cicero's 
description  of  the  lifelike  way  in  which  Roscius  played 
the  part  of  Ballio  (Pro  Rose,  Com,  7,  20). 

In  particular,  we  know  of  a  definite  period  at  which 
a  special  interest  was  taken  in  the  production  of  Plautus. 
The  beginning  of  this  period  is  marked  by  the  prologue 
to  the  Casina,  11.  5-20.  The  managers  have  heard,  they 
say  to  the  audience,  studiose  expetere  vos  Plautinas  fahu- 
las,  and  so  they  have  brought  out  again  an  old  comedy 
which,  when  it  was  first  given,  won  the  victory  over  all 
competitors.  The  date  of  this  "  Plautine  Revival"  is 
fixed  by  11.  14-20.  The  second  production  of  the  Casina 
took  place  after  the  passing  of  the  flos  poetarum  ,  ,  ,  qui 
nunc   ahierunt   hinc   in   communem    locum    (11.    18-19). 

"The  technical  term  applied  to  this  process  of  addition  and 
alteration  is  retractatio — a  "  working-over  "  of  the  plays.     Cf.  p.  13. 


INTEODUCTION  5f 

This  must  point  to  a  date  after  159  B.  C,  the  year  in 
which  Terence  died.  Practically  the  same  results  are 
reached  by  calculation  from  11.  14-15.  There  the  speaker 
says  that  the  seniores  who  were  present  would  remember 
the  first  performance  of  the  play,  but  the  iuniores  would  * 
not  be  familiar  with  it.  There  was  a  gap,  then,  of  about 
thirty  years,  between  the  first  production,  which  could 
not  have  been  later  than  the  death  of  Plautus,  in  184 
B.  C,  and  the  second,  which  was  presumably  not  earlier 
than  154  B.  C. 

We  do  not  know  how  long  this  revival  lasted,  nor  how 
extensive  it  was.  But  we  should  naturally  expect  the 
managers  who  conducted  the  later  performances  to  make 
some  changes  in  the  text  to  suit  their  own  audiences. 
The  most  obvious  addition  would  be  some  mention  in 
the  prologue  of  the  Plautine  authorship  of  the  play. 
Thus  we  find  in  the  scrap  of  prologue  that  is  prefixed 
to  our  text  of  the  Pseudolus,  the  same  phrase  that  we 
noticed  in  the  Casina  (Plautina  ,  ,  ,  fahula).  Possi- 
bly, too,  the  prominence  given  to  the  name  of  Plautus  in 
some  of  the  other  prologues  may  indicate  a  post-Plautine 
origin.  The  prologuist  of  the  Menaechmi  says  (1.  3) 
Apporto  vohis  Plautum — lingua^  non  manu;  and  the  Truc- 
ulentus  begins:  Perparvam  partem  posiulat  Plautus  loci 
De  vostris  magnis  atque  amoenis  moenibus. 

The  name  of  the  Casina  seems  to  have  been  changed 
at  this  time,  for  we  find  it  appearing  in  the  prologue 
(11.  31-32)  as  KXtjpovfievoL  .  .  .  Graece,  Latine  Sorti- 
entes,^^     To  the  changes  made  in  the  same  period  may 


"  It  is  not  clear  from  the  text  whether  Sortientes  was  the 
original  or  the  post-Plautine  title  of  the  play.  The  weight  of 
recent  scholarship  favors  the  former  view.  See  M.  Schanz,  Romische 
Literatwrgeschichte^  i.,  1  (1907),  p.  78,  and  the  literature  cited 
there. 


10 


BETKACTATIO  IN  PLAUTUS 


INTRODUCTION 


11 


I 


be  due  the  variant  titles  for  other  plays  which  occur 
in  the  grammarians.  The  Mostellaria  is  cited  twice  by 
Festus  (p.  162M,  quoting  Most.  2-iO,  and  p.  305,  quoting 
Most.  727-728)  as  Plauius  in  Phasmate  (Fasmate);  and 
the  Syr  .  .  .(i.  e.,  Syra,  the  name  of  the  Una?)  which 
Festus  cites  (pp.  301,  352)  may  be  only  another  name 
for  the  Cistellaria,  since  Priscian  (I.,  103)  quotes  the 
same  phrase  in  a  four-line  passage  (=z  CisL  405-408) 
from  Plautus  in  Cistellaria^^ 

Even  in  the  body  of  the  plays  there  are  many  suspicious 
points  which  can  best  be  referred  to  changes  made  at 
the  time  of  the  Plautine  Eevival.  It  is  hard  to  reconcile 
Cicero's  exclamation  (De  Senect.  14,  50)  :  Quani  gaudehat 
hello  suo  Punico  Naevius!  quam  Truculento  Plautus! 
quam  Pseudolo!  with  our  present  text  of  the  Truculentus, 
in  which  the  title  is  inappropriate  and  the  action  motive- 
less. Therefore  Bergk's  ^^  theory  that  we  have  merely 
a  shortened  form  of  the  Plautine  play  seems  plausible. 
The  Curculio,  too,  is  slight  in  plot  and  (like  the  Trucu- 
lentus) is  considerably  below  the  average  of  Plautus  in 
length,  so  that  here  again  we  may  suspect  that  the  play 
has  been  abridged.^^ 

At  times  the  manuscripts  show  even  clearer  traces  of 
revision.  In  many  places  we  can  recognize  two  parallel 
versions  of  the  same  speech  or  bit  of  dialogue.  A  glance 
at  Bacch.  377-378,  380-381  will  show  that  they  contain 
exactly  the  same  thought,  expressed  in  almost  identical 
words : 

"F.  Schoell,  Ed.  Mai.   (1894),  Praef.,  pp.  xiii  f. 

^  Th.  Bergk,  Beitrdge  zur  lateinischen  Grammatik,  Halle,  1870, 
pp.   128  flf.     0.  Ribbeck  in  Rhein.  Mus.  37    (1882),  p.  422. 

"Goetz  in  Acta  soc.  phil.  Lips.  6  (1876),  p.  282;  Ed.  Mai.  (1879), 
Praef.,  p.  xxii. 


11.  377-378.     Quihus  patrem  et  me  teque  amtcosque  omnes  adfectas 

tuos 
Ad    probrum,    damnum,    flagitium    adpellere    una    et 

perdere. 
11.  380-381.     Quihus  tuom  patrem  meque  una,  amicos,  adfinis  tuos 
Tua  infamia  fecisti  gerulifigulos  fiagiti. 

Similarly,  Most,   Sie""" 

SI.     Vin    qui    perductet?     TH.    Apage    istum    perductorem:    non 

placet. 
Quicquid  est,  errabo  potius,  quam  perductet  quispiam, 

presents  in  shorter  form  the  sense  of  11.  843-847 : 

SI.     Eho,  istum,  puere,  circumduce  hasce  aedis  et  conclavia. 
Nam   egomet   ductarem,   nisi   mi   esset   apud   forum   negotium. 
TH.     Apage  istum  a  me  perductorem:    nil  moror  ductarier 
Quicquid  est,  errabo  potius,  quam  perductet  quispiam. 

In  both  these  passages,  only  one  of  the  two  great  families 
of  manuscripts  ^^  is  available,  and  all  the  manuscripts 
of  the  family  agree  in  giving  both  versions.  In  some 
cases,  however,  one  family  presents  a  secondary  version 
which  is  missing  in  the  other.  The  most  notable  example 
is  in  the  first  scene  of  the  Stichus,  where  a  canticum 
is  followed  by  a  passage  in  senarii  of  exactly  the  same 
tenor — the  latter  omitted  in  A,  but  preserved  in  P. 
There  are  other  less  striking  but  still  undoubted  cases. 
Bacch.  SIO'""  (omitted  in  A)  repeat  the  sense  and  some 
of  the  phrasing  of  11.  512-514: 

11.  512-514.-     Verum  quam  ilia  umquam  de  mea  pecunia 
Ramenta  fiat  plumea  propensior, 
Mendicum  malim  mendicando  vincere. 

^A,  the  Ambrosian  Palimpsest,  probably  written  in  the  fourth 
century,  and  P,  the  Palatine  family,  a  group  of  minuscule  manu- 
scripts ranging  from  the  tenth  to  the  twelfth  century  in  date. 


12 


EETEACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


11.  519*'"'.       8ed  autem  quam  ilia  umquam   meis   opulentiis 
Ramenta   fiat   gravior    aut   propensior, 
Mori  me  malim  excruciatum  inopia. 

In  Cist,  120-122,  126-129,  the  verbal  parallels  are  not 
so  close,  but  the  thought  is  nevertheless  the  same,  and 
the  second  passage  is  omitted  in  A.  It  is  possible  (though 
too  much  weight  must  not  be  laid  upon  this,  in  view  of 
the  proverbial  weakness  of  grammarians'  memories)  that 
some  of  the  disagreements  between  the  testimonia  and 
our  received  text  may  be  explained  on  the  theory  of 
parallel  versions,  especially  as  Charisius,  in  quoting  Bacch, 
545  (Bacch.  540-551  are  omitted  in  A)  says  in  quihusdam 
non  ferunt<ur>. 

In  addition  to  these  secondary  versions,  the  manuscripts 
sometimes  present  apparent  attempts  to  shorten  scenes 
by  omission.23  People  who  had  to  stretch  their  legs  before 
a  Plautina  longa  fahula  came  on  the  boards  (Pseud.  Prol.) 
would  be  likelv  to  welcome  some  cutting.  The  method 
of  indicating  such  omissions,  according  to  Lindsay,  was 
to  adscribe  in  the  margin,  opposite  the  beginning  of  the 
passage  in  question,  the  line  or  lines  which  were  immedi- 
ately to  follow.24  This  seems  to  be  the  purpose  of  the 
repetition  in  the  first  scene  of  the  BaccJiides.^^  Line  73 
appears  after  1.  64,  as  well  as  in  its  proper  place,  and 
the  verses  that  intervene  (65-72)  contain  a  series  of  puns 
and  quibbles  which  might  easily  be  spared.  Most.  553, 
557-559  are  repeated  after  1.  549,  as  if  to  indicate 
the  possibility  of  shortening  this  rather  wordy  passage.^^ 

23Gootz  in  Acta  soc.  phil.  Lips.  6  (1876),  pp.  268  f.  W.  Lindsay, 
Ancient  Editions  of  Pluutus,  Oxford,  1904,  p.  1,  note  a   (end). 

^Lindsay  in  Amer.  Journ.  Phil.  21    (1900),  p.  27. 

''Goetz,  Ed.  Mai.   (1886),  ad  loc. 

^H.  Kellermann  in  Comm.  phil.  Jen.  7  (1903),  p.  134.  Cf. 
Lindsay,  Ed.    (1905),  ad  loc. 


INTRODUCTION 


13 


In  the  Trinummus,  some  stage-manager  seems  to  have 
cut  out  11.  362-368 — pious  reflections  which  are  somewhat 
tedious  after  the  protracted  moralizing  of  the  first  part 
of  the  scene — in  order  to  come  to  the  point  in  1.  369.^"^ 
This  line  is  inserted  in  A  after  1.  361 ;  and  in  P,  not 
only  1.  369,  but  1.  368  as  well,  has  slipped  into  this 
place. 

To  this  stage  revision  of  Plautus  has  been  given,  in 
recent  years,  the  technical  name  retractatio.  It  corres- 
ponds to  the  Greek  hao-Kevrj  (which  was  Eitschl's  term 
for  it),  and  though,  like  the  word  contaminatio,  it  has 
no  support  in  classical  Latin,  it  is  so  convenient  that 
it  may  well  be  retained.  The  first  work  on  retractatio 
was  done  by  Osann,-^  in  the  last  three  chapters  of  his 
Analecta  Critica.  He  summed  up  the  evidence  for  per- 
formances of  Plautus  after  his  death,  with  especial  em- 
phasis on  the  Casina-prologue,  and  argued  that  many 
variations  in  our  texts  must  go  back  to  these  later  pro- 
ductions. The  actors'  versions  were,  in  his  opinion, 
responsible  for  the  citation  by  grammarians  of  verses 
not  in  our  text,  or  of  different  forms  of  verses  which 
we  have,  as  well  as  for  parallels  in  the  manuscripts 
of  Plautus.  His  first  two  points  are  open  to  question, 
and  so  is  his  assumption  of  post-Plautine  subject-matter 
in  such  passages,  e.  g.,  as  Bacch.  1072-1075,  which  speaks 
of  a  triumph  as  a  common  thing,  or  Cas.  699,  which  men- 
tions a  vilicus.  But  his  principle  that  where  parallel 
versions  exist  both  should  be  preserved,  is  correct;  and 
his  opinion  agrees  in  several  cases  (e.  g.,  Bacch.  511-520; 
Pers.  442-443,  433-436)  with  the  results  of  more  recent 
scholarship,  while  in  others  (Capt.  1022,  Most.  548  ff.. 


"Lindsay  in  Amer.  Journ.  Phil.  21    (1900),  pp.  27  f. 
^F.  Osann,  Analecta  Critica,  Berlin,  1816,  pp.  141-204. 


14 


EETEACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


Poen.   1042   ff.)?   ^^^^  though  his  solution  may  not  be 
correct,  he  has  recognized  the  difficulty. 

The  weak  points  in  Osann's  theories  were  patent  enough, 
and  it  was  these,  rather  than  his  real  contributions  to 
the  study  of  Plautus,  that  scholars  of  his  generation  chose 
to  consider.  Ladewig  -^  pointed  out  the  danger  of  infer- 
ring from  discrepancies  in  grammarians'  citations  that 
different  versions  of  a  play  existed,  when  the  same  result 
might  have  been  brought  about  by  many  other  causes — 
lacunae  in  our  text,  carelessness  in  quoting,  or  error  in 
the   text  tradition   of  the   grammarians    themselves. 

EitschFs  Parerga  ^^  contain  a  number  of  valuable  obser- 
vations on  the  period  of  the  Plautine  Kevival  ^^  and  its 
effect  on  the  manuscript  tradition — especially  changes  of 
title,^-  new  versions  of  the  prologues,^^  and  the  second 
ending  of  the  Poenulus,^^  But  in  reality  Eitschl  was 
rather  conservative  in  applying  his  theories  to  single 
points  in  the  text.  He  notes  various  kinds  of  addition 
and  repetition  in  the  Trinummus,  but,  even  though  he 
observes  that  1.  312  "  perbene,  si  numeros  spectas,  f  actus 
est  versiculus,"  he  takes  this  merely  as  proof  of  "  vetustas 
interpolationis  et  exercitatio  interpolatoris."  ^^  The  sec- 
tion De  Plauti  Bacchidihus  ^^  contains  a  spirited  reply 
to  Osann  on  this  one  play.  Eitschl  argues  that  the 
difficulties  of  the  play  are  caused  mainly  by  the  loss 
of  a  large  portion  at  the  beginning,  and  that  the  confusion 
in  the  text  which  leads  Osann  to  suspect  parallel  versions, 


29 


Ladewig  in  Zeitschr.  f.  Alter tumswiss.  1841,  coll.  1079  ff.; 
Rhein.  Mus.  3    (1845),  pp.   179-205;   520-540. 

^  F.   Ritschl,   Parerga  Plautina   et   Terentiana,   Leipzig,    1845. 

«Pp.   89  ff.  ^Pp.  157  ff.;  233  ff. 

»3Pp.   180  ff.  ^Pp.  601  ff.  ^Pp.  509  ff. 

^Pp.  389  ff.  Cf.  Ritschl  in  Rhein.  Mus.  4  (1846),  pp.  354  ff.; 
567  ff.    (=Opusc.  II.,  pp.  293-374). 


INTRODUCTION 


15 


is  due  to  the  usual  carelessness  of  scribes.  It  is  possible, 
however,  to  trace  a  gradual  shifting  of  position  in  Eitschl's 
editions  of  the  plays.  When  he  edited  the  Trinummus, 
he  committed  himself  no  further  than  to  say:  ^'^  ^'  Ceterum 
diversarum  recensionum  tenues  quasdam  tanquam  reliqui- 
as  non  infitior  hodie  quoque  superesse,  sed  earum  ex  anti- 
quioribus  ut  puto  saeculis  repetendarum,  partim  autem  sua 
sponte  natarum,  partim  critiea  opera  grammatiooruin.  par- 
atarum  ";  and  the  note  on  Bacch.  377,  378  (Ed.  1849)  is 
equally  cautious :  ^^  "  ;N'on  possunt  ab  eodem  posita  esse 
qui  versus  380,  381  scriberet:  quamquam  iam  a  Ils'onio 
lecti,  qui  priorem  affert."  Eitschl  recognized  traces  of 
SLacr/cevrj  in  the  Sticlius,^^  especially  in  the  first  scene, 
and  in  the  names  of  the  sisters,  which  appear  in  different 
forms  in  the  two  families  of  manuscripts ;  he  thought  that 
Pers.  IV.,  9  must  have  suffered  shortening ;  "^^  and  finally, 
in  his  preface  to  the  Mercator/^  he  not  only  distinguished 
between  Bcao-fcevi]  and  the  dittography  of  the  scribes,  but 
assumed  that  the  prologue,  either  as  a  whole  or  in  part, 
and  three  certain  cases  of  "  parallels,"  dated  from  the 
Plautine  Eevival  at  the  beginning  of  the  seventh  century 
A.  U.  C. 

Bergk,  in  his  reviews  of  EitschPs  edition  of  Plautus,^- 
had  noted  that  certain  cases  of  dittography  were  due,  not 
to  the  changes  of  a  grammarian  or  copyist,  but  to  altera- 
tion for  the  stage;  and  he  observed  with  some  pleasure 
Eitschl's  gradual  conversion  to  his  own  point  of  view. 


"Ed.    (1848),    Praef.,   p.  livii.    {=Opusc.    v.,    325). 

^Ed.  (1849),  ad  loc.  ^Bd.    (1850),  Praef.,  pp.  x  ff . 


40 


Ed.   (1853),  Praef.,  p.  ix.  «  Ed.   (1854),  Praef.,  pp.  vii  f. 

*^Th.  Bergk  in  Zeitschr.  f.  Altertumswiss.  6  (1848),  coll.  1124- 
1149  {=Opusc.  I.,  pp.  3-29)  on  Trinummus ;  8  (1850),  coll.  325-348 
{—Opusc.  I.,  pp.  29-53),  on  Miles,  Bacchides,  Stichus. 


16 


EETEACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


Even  Ladewig  so  far  changed  his  opinion  about  this 
"  grundverkehrt "  theory  of  Osann's/^  that  he  published 
in  1861  ^^  a  series  of  conjectures  of  his  own,  made  on 
the  basis  of  Ritschl's  text,  in  which  he  recognized  a 
number  of  parallel  passages  and  later  additions. 

Thus  at  the  end  of  half  a  century,  retractatio  had 
won  a  place  as  a  recognized  phenomenon  in  Plautus. 
The  work  since  1870  has  consisted  chiefly  of  a  more 
detailed  study  of  single  plays,  and  of  theorizing  as  to 
when  and  how  the  later  versions  entered  our  text  tradition. 

Oskar  Seyffert  '^  in  1874  suggested  a  theory  which  he 
has  since  elaborated:  namely,  that  the  variant  lines  of 
our  text  of  Plautus  were,  at  one  period  in  the  history 
of   the   manuscripts,   written   in   the   margin;    and   that 
their  present  position,  sometimes  before,  sometimes  after, 
the  place  where  they  belong,  is  due  to  careless  copying 
from  the  margin  into  the  text.     Seyif ert's  statements  were 
made  on  the  basis  of  a  few  suspicious  passages.    Two  years 
later  Goetz  ^«  made  a  study  of  a  large  number  of  ditto- 
graphies,  dividing  them   into  four  general  classes:    (1) 
where   one  version   immediately  follows   the   other;    (2) 
where  one  is  inserted  in  the  middle  of  the  other;    (3) 
where  the  two  are  separated  by  an  interval;   (4)  where 
only  the  later  version  is  preserved.     As  characteristics  of 
the  rewritten  passages  he  notes  an  effort  for  rhythmical 
correspondence,  humor  of  a  very  poor  quality,  and  especi- 
ally the  attempt  to  shorten  excessively  long  scenes.     He 
observes  that  the  dittographies  generally  appear  in  both 
families  of  manuscripts,  and  he  therefore  concludes  that 

*3Lade\vig  in  Rhein.  Mus.  3    (1845),  p.  523. 
« Ladewig   in   Philol.   17    (1861),   pp.   248-269;    452-480. 
«0.  Seyifert,  Studia  Plautina,  Berlin,   1874,  pp.   10  ff. 
*«G.  Goetz  in  Acta  soc.  phil.  Lips.  6  (1876),  pp.  235-326. 


INTRODUCTION 


17 


they  probably  stood  in  the  common  archetype,  into  which 
the  smaller  ones  at  least  were  introduced  as  marginal 
adscripts.  Another  general  treatment  of  the  plays  was 
undertaken  by  Langen,"*^  who,  in  1886,  discussed  the 
troublesome  points  of  each  play  under  three  headings: 
(1)  repetition  of  thought;  (2)  discrepancies  in  subject- 
matter;  (3)  spurious  and  suspected  passages.  The  great 
value  of  his  work  lies  in  its  completeness.  Where  two 
versions  unquestionably  exist,  Langen's  comprehensive 
study  enables  him  to  decide  which  is  Plautine;  and  on 
the  other  hand  he  can  argue  that  certain  faults  which 
are  characteristic  of  Plautus  everywhere  are  not  to  be 
charged  to  retractatio. 

In  the  ten  years  between  Goetz's  article  and  Langen's 
book  students  of  Plautus  produced  numerous  articles  and 
studies  on  the  individual  plays.  Many  of  them  made 
some  valuable  contributions  to  our  knowledge  of  retrac- 
tatio, but  nearly  all  went  too  far  in  their  search  for 
traces  of  dittography.*®  Within  the  last  ten  years  there 
has  been  a  revival  of  interest  in  the  subject,  and  a  second 
(and  perhaps  a  more  moderate)  set  of  dissertations  has 
appeared. 

Recent  study  of  retractatio  has  been  more  or  less  closely 
connected  with  critical  estimates  of  the  manuscripts. 
Since  the  time  of  Ritschl,^^  it  had  been  a  generally 
accepted  idea  that  the  two  families  of  manuscripts  which 
we  have  to-day — A,  the  Ambrosian  Palimpsest,  written  in 
rustic  capitals  and  dating  probably  from  the  fourth  cen- 


4T 


P.   Langen,  Plautinische  Studien,  Berlin,   1886. 

"See,  for  example:  W.  Brachmann,  De  Bdcchidum  Plautinae 
retractatione  scaenica,  in  Leipz.  Stud.  3  (1880),  pp.  59-187;  A.  An- 
spach,  De  Bacchidum  Plautinae  retractatione  scaenica,  Bonn,   1882. 

«Ritschl,  Ed.  Trin.   (1848),  pp.  xxxviii  flf. 


18 


EETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


tury,  and  P,  the  Palatine  family,  consisting  of  a  half 
dozen  minuscule  manuscripts— went  back  to  a  common 
archetype ;  and  numerous  studies  were  made  to  determine 
which  of  these  families  was  the  more  trustworthy.^^^     In 
1885,   in  the  preface  to  his   edition  of  Plautus,"^    Leo 
stated  a  theory  (more  fully  developed  later  ^2)  which  has 
given  the  impetus  to  much  of  the  recent  work  on  the 
manuscript  question.     The  theory  is :  that  our  two  fam- 
ilies of  manuscripts,  A  and  P,  represent  reading  copies 
of  an  edition  of  the  twenty-one  plays  made  by  Probus 
(a  grammarian  of  the  Flavian   period)    or  his   school. 
Both  this  edition  and  the  first  published  edition  of  Plau- 
tus,  in  the  age  of  Lucilius  and   Accius,   were  made  on 
Alexandrian  principles— i.   e.,  everything  in  the  sources 
was  preserved  in  the  text,  and  critical  symbols  indicated 
spuriousness   or    referred    to   notes   in   the    commentary. 
The  variant  readings  and  parallel  versions  in  our  manu- 
scripts  accordingly  owe  their  preservation  to  the  gram- 
matical work  of  these  two  periods.     The  last  point  was 
disputed  by  Seyffert.     He  had  evidently  been  collecting 
material  to  support  his  theory  of  marginal  variants  during 
the  twenty  years  that  had  elapsed  since  the  publication 
of  his   Studia  Plauiina.^^     He  now  took   as   a   starting 
point  Leo's  remark  ^^  that  the  repetition  of  Men.  1037- 
1043,  in  slightly  different  form,  between  1.  1028  and  1. 
1029,  was  due  to  a  grammarian  of  the  second  or  third 

^Such  as  M.  Niemeyer,  Be  Plauti  fahularum  recensione  duplici, 
Berlin,  1877;  B.  Baier,  De  Plauti  fabularum  recensionibus  Am- 
brosiana    et    Palatina    commentatio    critica,    Breslau,    1885. 

"Leo,  Ed.    (1885),  Praef. 

*^Leo,  Plant.  Forsch.,  pp.  1-53;   Plmit.  Cant.,  pp.  5  ff . 

^E.  A.  Sonnenschein  in  Trans.  Amer.  Phil.  Ass.  24  (1893),  p.  7, 
quotes  Seyffert   "  in  a  private  communication "  on  this  question. 

^Leo,  Plant.  Forsch.,  pp.  15,  16. 


INTRODUCTION 


19 


century,  who  copied  this  version  into  the  margin  of  his 
manuscript.  Seyffert  ^^  questioned  Leo's  statement,  and, 
with  a  wealth  of  suggestion  and  illustration,  advanced  the 
contrary  theory:  that  the  variant  in  question  appeared 
in  the  common  ancestor  of  A  and  P,  and  that  at  least 
a  considerable  number  of  the  differences  between  our 
two  recensions  can  be  traced  back,  not  to  the  activity  of 
grammarians,  but  to  marginal  or  interlinear  variants  in 
the  archetype. 

Leo's  theory  was  again  attacked  by  Lindsay,  who  de- 
voted his  "  Ancient  Editions  of  Plautus  "  ^®  to  a  state- 
ment of  his  own  views.  According  to  Lindsay,  the  text- 
tradition  of  Plautus  followed  after  his  death  ^^  two  main 
divergent  channels,"  "  the  one  adhering  to  the  genuine 
^  ipsa  verba '  of  the  poet,  the  other  exhibiting  all  the 
alterations,  curtailments,  or  amplifications  introduced  by 
the  stage-managers  of  the  Revival  time  in  order  to  make 
the  performance  pleasing  to  the  audience  of  the  day.'' 
There  was  a  certain  amount  of  "  mixture  "  of  these  two 
versions,  and  of  addition  from  grammarians  and  com- 
mentators, but  in  general  the  Ambrosian  Palimpsest 
represents  the  first  of  these  traditions,  the  genuine  "  ipsa 
verba "  of  the  plays,  and  the  Palatine  text  shows  the 
"  Revival  "  adaptations. 

This  view,  "  conservative  "  and  "  optimistic  "  as  Lind- 
say thought  it,  has  aroused  much  opposition.  The  Italian 
reviewer  ^'*  who  criticized  the  book  found  himself  "  piena- 
mente  d'accordo "  with  the  views  expressed  there,  but 
English  and  German  critics  have  treated  it  less  kindly. 


56  Seyffert  in  Berl.  Phil.  Woch.  16    (1896),  coll.  252-255;   283-288. 
"Lindsay,  The  Ancient  Editions  of  Plautus,  Oxford,   1904,  espec- 
ially pp.   35-37;    142-150. 

"  Aurelio-Giuseppe  Amatucci  in  Riv.  di  Fil.  34  (1906),  pp.  605-608. 


20 


EETEACTATIO    IN    PLATJTUS 


21 


Leo  ^^  thinks  that  Lindsay  has  too  little  regard  for  the 
views  of  other  scholars  on  the  passages  which  he  dis- 
cusses, and  is  too  anxious  to  find  "stage  alterations" 
wherever  P  differs  from  A,  even  in  single  words.  "  Und 
wenn  man  Lindsay  recht  geben  will,"  he  concludes,  "  dass 
meistens  A  die  urspriingliche  Lesart  bietet,  so  folgt  damit 
doch  nichts  fur  seine  Hypothese,  dass  A  in  ungebrochener 
Linie  auf  Plautus,  P  in  eben  so  ungebrochener  Linie  auf 
die  gleich  nach  Plautus  eingetretene  Uberarbeitung  zu- 
riickgehe."  And  Sonnenschein  ^^  puts  his  opinion  con- 
cisely: "Mr.  Lindsay's  conception  of  the  independence 
of  the  two  recensions  from  so  early  a  date  will  not,  I 
think,  be  found  to  hold  water."  «^ 

One  class  of  difficulties  still  remains,  a  class  which  is 
found  to  a  greater  or  less  extent  in  all  classical  authors, 
and  which  may  therefore  be  briefly  dismissed.  This  kind 
of  alteration,  which  goes  by  the  name  of  interpolation 
originates  later  than  any  of  the  others,  and  is  due  chiefly 
to  the  work  of  grammarians  and  commentators.  It  often 
arises  through  the  addition  in  the  margin  of  a  parallel 
passage  from  some  other  play,  which  in  the  course  of 
time  is  taken  into  the  text.  The  earlier  stage  of  this 
process  appears  in  the  manuscript  B.  Cure,  u.,  1  is  con- 
cerned with  the  physical  condition  of  the  leno  Cappadox. 
In  the  margin  opposite  11.  222,  223  (though  apparently 
intended  as  an  adscript  to  the  phrase  oculis  herheis  in 
1.  231)  are  the  words: 

«Leo  in  Gott.  Gel.  Anz.  166    (1904),  pp.  358-374. 

^»  Sonnenschein  in  Class.   Rev.   19    (1905),   pp.   311-316. 

•"One  great  objection  to  Lindsay's  theory,  the  existence  of  a  large 

number   of    common   errors   in   A    and   P,    was    emphasized   by   Leo 

{Gott.  Gel.  Anz.  1904,  pp.  364  flf.),  and  has  since  been  investigated 

in    detail   by   Eugen    Sicker    {Philol   Suppl.-Band.    xi.    (1908),    pp. 

179-252). 


\ 


r 


i 

[ 


INTEODUCTION 

Solent  tibi  oculi  duri  fieri 
censesne   locustam  esse, 


and  opposite  11.  242,  243 : 

album  atrum  vinum  potas 
quid   tibi   quaesito  opus   est. 

Both  couplets  are  confused  versions  of  lines  from  Men.  v., 
5  (923-924;  915  ff.),  the  scene  in  which  the  physician  is 
examining  Menaechmus  I.  for  symptoms  of  insanity ;  and 
Eitsehl  ^^  thinks  it  probable  that  they  were  set  down  as 
parallels  for  the  similar  scene  in  the  Curculio.  So  Stick. 
722 

Quid  igitur?  quamquam  gravatus  fuisti,  non  nocuit  tamen 

seems  to  have  been  added  as  a  parallel  to  1.  763  gravate, 
and  then  to  have  been  copied  into  the  text  after  1.  766.^^ 
In  the  same  way,  a  gloss  on  a  single  word  or  the  ex- 
planation of  a  difficult  phrase  may  be  added  between  the 
lines  or  in  the  margin,  and  so  creep  into  the  text.  This 
accounts  for  some  extra  lines  and  some  divergence  of 
tradition  in  our  manuscripts.     Poen.  1020 

Ut  hortum  fodiat  atque  ut  frumentum  metat 

is  apparently  an  explanation  of  palas  and  mergas  two 
lines  above;  and  Pers.  321  rogasti  P  (for  orasti  A)  f^ 
408  periure  A  (for  iniure  P  and  JKTonius)  ;  Poen.  342 
occuUo  A  (for  abstruse  P)  all  seem  to  be  glosses. 

We  are  indebted  to  Eitsehl  for  clearing  away  many  of 
these  intrusions  into  our  text,  and  in  particular  for  point- 

"Ritschl  in  Philol.  1  (1846),  pp.  300  ff.  (=0pM5C.  ii.,  pp.  274  ff.) 
"Ritschl  in  Philol  1    (1846),  p.  305   (=Opusc.  n.,  p.  281). 
""Cf.  Lindsay,  Anc.  Edd.,  p.  73. 


22 


EETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


ing  out  how  often  the  citation  of  a  parallel  passage  might 
cause  confusion.^^  Goetz,  in  his  discussion  of  Ditto- 
graphien  im  Plautustexte,^'  and  Kellermann  in  the  article 
entitled  De  Plauto  Sui  Imitatore,''^  made  similar  studies, 
but  in  each  of  these  the  work  on  interpolatio  was  simply 
a  preliminary  to  the  main  investigation. 

The  century  of  philological  work  on  Plautus,  the  course 
of  which  has  just  been  outlined,  makes  it  possible  to  sum- 
marize the  causes  of  difficulty  and  inconsistency  in  the 
plays  as  follows:  (1)  free  treatment  by  Plautus  of  his 
Greek  originals,  resulting  in  omissions  or  in  the  combina- 
tion of  two  originals  into  one  Latin  play;  (2)  Plautine 
carelessness  in  detail  ;«^  (3)  changes  in  the  text  made 
during  the  Kevival,  a  generation  after  the  death  of 
Plautus;  and  (4)  parallel  adscripts,  explanations,  and 
glosses,  added  by  later  scribes. 

The  mass  of  difficulties  grouped  under  the  third  head 
of  this  summary  (retradatio)  forms  the  subject  of  the 
present  investigation.  An  effort  has  been  made  first  of 
all  to  determine  whether  the  two  great  families  of  manu- 

«*Ritschl  in  Philol  1    (1846),  pp.  300-314   {=Opusc.  ii,  pp.  274- 

291). 

«=  Goetz  in  Acta  soc.  phil.  Lips.   6    (1876),  pp.  236  flf. 

'^Kellerman  in  Comm.  phil.  Jen.  7    (1903),  pp.   131  ff. 

•'Inconsistencies  due  to  the  first  two  causes  are  traceable  to 
Plautus  himself.  Further  back  than  Plautus  it  is  almost  im- 
possible to  go.  But  as  the  charm  of  ISIenander  shows  through 
even  the  mutilated  Cistellaria,  so  it  is  possible  that  a  few  of  the 
defects  in  Plautus  may  be  referred  to  his  Greek  models.  Wilam- 
owitz  {Index  schol.  Gott.  1893-1894,  pp.  13  flf.)  has  made  it  probable 
that  the  poor  technique  and  crude  character-drawing  of  the  Persa 
go  back  to  an  original  in  Middle  Comedy,  and  it  may  be  that 
Acts  I.-III.  of  the  Poenulus,  which  are  distinctly  poorer  than  the 
other  half  of  the  play,  merely  reflect  the  weakness  and  verbosity 
of  the  Greek  original.     (See  the  analysis  below). 


INTRODUCTION 


23 


scripts  differ  in  the  amount  of  retractatio  that  they  indi- 
cate, and  secondarily  to  throw  new  light  on  the  general 
problem  of  retractatio.  Since  the  two  groups  of  manu- 
scripts can  be  compared  only  where  it  is  possible  to  know 
the  contents  of  the  Ambrosian  Palimpsest,  the  work  is 
limited  to  the  five  plays  best  preserved  in  that  manu- 
script (Persa,  Poenulus,  Pseudolus,  Stichus,  Trinum- 
mus),  and  primarily  to  those  portions  of  the  plays  the 
text  of  which  is  contained  in  both  A  and  P.  Except  in 
cases  where  the  source  of  the  confusion  is  doubtful,  diffi- 
culties due  to  other  causes  than  retractatio  are  excluded. 
Of  the  passages  suspected  of  retractatio,  only  those  in 
which  its  presence  seems  fairly  probable  are  discussed; 
others,  w4iich  can  lead  only  to  questionable  conclusions, 
are  listed  in  footnotes. ^^  Citations  are  made  from  the 
Goetz-Schoell  text  of  Plautus  (Editio  Minor), ^^  and 
Studemund's  Apographon  "^^  is  taken  as  the  basis  of  the 
work  on  A. 

Mention  has  already  been  made  of  the  two  families  of 
manuscripts  on  which  our  text  of  Plautus  is  based.  A 
fuller  description  is  a  necessary  preliminary  to  an  in- 
vestigation w^hich  must  constantly  refer  to  the  manu- 
scripts. Until  the  early  part  of  the  nineteenth  century, 
only  one  of  these  families,  the  Palatine,  was  known. 
This  group,  which  received  its  name  from  the  fact  that 


•*  Variations  of  a  word  or  phrase  are  not  considered.  Of  course 
Bome  of  these  may  be  due  to  retractatio  {e.  g.,  Pers.  597  me 
inpulsore  atque  inlice  A,  sti^isu  atque  inpulsu  meo  P;  Poen.  343 
palpas  et  lallas  A,  caput  et  corpus  copulas  P)  ;  but  the  majority 
of  cases  are  probably  to  be  assigned  to  scribal  error  or  interpolation. 

~G.  Goetz  and  F.  Schoell,  Plauti  Comoediae,  Leipzig,  1892-1896 
(revised    1904-1909). 

'"  W.  Studemund,  T.  Macci  Plauti  Fahularum  Reliquiae  Amhros- 
ianae,   Berlin,    1889. 


24 


EETKACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


its  most  important  representatives,  B  and  C,  were  at 
one  time  in  the  library  of  the  Elector  Palatine,  comprises 
six  or  seven  manuscripts,  ranging  in  date  from  the  early 
tenth  to  the  late  twelfth  century.  Though  the  manu- 
scripts vary  greatly  in  authority,  their  common  origin 
is  a  recognized  factJ^  Therefore,  for  the  purposes  of  this 
paper,  variations  between  the  individual  manuscripts  are 
disregarded,  and  the  whole  family  is  designated  by  the 
symbol  P. 

Of  the  other  family  of  manuscripts  there  is  only  one 
representative,  a  palimpsest  in  the  Ambrosian  Library 
at  Milan,  written  about  the  fourth  century,  and  covered 
in  the  seventh  or  eighth  century  with  parts  of  the  Book 
of  Kings.  It  was  discovered  by  Cardinal  Mai,  under 
whose  direction  an  imperfect  collation  was  published  in 
1815  with  the  title  M.  Accii  Plauti  Fragmenta  Inedita. 
Even  at  that  time  the  manuscript  was  in  a  bad  condition. 
Some  leaves  were  lost  altogether,  and  those  that  remained 
had  been  injured  by  the  cleaning  process,  by  the  ink  of 
the  second  writing,  and  by  the  chemicals  that  Mai  used 
to  restore  the  original  text.  With  careless  handling 
and  with  the  passage  of  time,  some  of  the  pages  were 
torn,  and  others  decayed  so  as  to  leave  only  a  border 
around  the  edge,  while  the  ink  gradually  faded.  Ritschl, 
writing  in  1837,'^^  lamented  the  loss  of  some  passages 
(e.  g.j  in  the  Cistellaria),  which  could  have  been  read 
when  the  palimpsest  was  first  discovered,  and  censured 
Mai   for  not  having   published   a   complete   collation   at 


"  See  the  stemma  codicum  in  Ritschl's  edition  of  the  Trinummus 
(1848),  and  the  discussions  in  more  recent  critical  editions — e.  g., 
Lindsay's  edition  of  the  Captivi,  London,  1900. 

"Ritschl  in  Zeitschrift  f.  Altertumswiss .  1837,  coll.  737-758 
{=Opnsc.  II.,  pp.  166-197). 


INTEODUCTION 


25 


that  time ;  and  Geppert  found  in  1846  "^^  that  much  that 
had  been  visible  even  the  year  before  had  faded  away. 
Studemund,  "that  scholar-hero,"  as  Sonnenschein  calls 
him,*^^  spent  the  greater  part  of  twenty-five  years  in 
deciphering  the  palimpsest,"^^  only  to  die  before  his  results 
were  given  to  the  world.  They  were  brought  out  by  his 
friend  Oskar  SeyfFert,  and  are  now  accessible  to  the  stu- 
dent of  Plautus,  in  a  form  which  is  of  infinitely  more 
value  to  him  than  the  manuscript  itseK  would  be. 

Fortunately,  even  the  smallest  fragments  are  of  value 
for  the  study  of  retractatio,  A  few  letters  at  the  begin- 
ning or  end  of  the  lines,  even  where  all  the  rest  of 
the  passage  is  gone,  show  whether  or  not  a  certain  passage 
appeared  in  A,  and  what  was  the  order  of  the  lines. 
Even  the  contents  of  a  missing  sheet  may  sometimes  be 
estimated  accurately.  Difficulty  arises  when  the  missing 
section  contained  a  canticum,  in  which  case  there  can 
be  no  certainty  as  to  how  the  lines  were  divided,  or 
unusually  long  verses,  like  trochaic  septenarii  or  iambic 
odonarii,  which  are  run  over  in  varying  proportions, 
sometimes  only  one  line  out  of  thirty-five,  sometimes 
three  lines  out  of  four.  Passages  containing  scene-head- 
ings also  cause  difficulty.  In  general,  the  scene-division  "^^ 
of  A  corresponds  to  that  of  our  printed  texts;  but  some- 
times, (e.  g.,  Pseud,  IV.,  5,  6)  two  scenes  are  run  together 
under  the  same  rubric,  and  sometimes  (e.  ^.,  Pers,  IV.,  7), 
where  a   single  character  leaves   the  stage,   there  is  no 


73 


K.  Geppert,  Vher  den  Codex  Ambrosia/nus  u.  seinen  Einfluss 
auf  die  plauti/nische  Kritik,  Leipzig,  1847,  p.  28. 

"Sonnenschein  in  Trans.  Amer.  Phil.  Ass.  24   (1893),  p.   10. 

"W.  Studemund,  T.  Macci  Plauti  Fabularum  Reliquiae  Amhros- 
ianae,  Berlin,  1889  (Edited  by  0.  Seyffert).  Prooem.,  p.  xxii., 
Seyffert's  note. 

"There  is  no  division  into  acts  in  any  of  the  manuscripts. 


26 


EETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


new  scene-heading.  On  the  other  hand,  A  leaves  a  space 
of  one  line  before  the  speech  of  the  Caterva  (CapL 
1029),  and  makes  a  similar  break  at  the  entrance  of 
Satiirio  (Pers,  726).  The  amoimt  of  space  left  for 
the  scene-headings  is  not  always  the  same.  In  about 
75  per  cent  of  the  cases  extant  the  scene-headings  occupy 
two  lines,  but  the  exceptions  occur  so  irregularly  that  one 
can  never  be  sure  how  much  space  was  occupied  by 
the  missing  headings.  In  the  present  paper,  calculation 
of  the  amount  of  text  in  lost  sheets  of  A  is  for  the  most 
part  confined  to  continuous  passages  of  trimeter  without 
scene-divisions.  Even  here,  of  course,  the  results  are  not 
absolutely  certain ;  in  other  places,  though  the  calculation 
has  occasionally  been  made,  it  has  even  slighter  claims 
to  accuracy. 


CHAPTER  I. 


PERSA 


The  hero  of  the  Persa  is  a  slave,  Toxilus,  who  holds  a 
position  of  trust  in  his  master's  household,  and  has  been 
left  in  charge  during  the  master's  absence.  Toxilus  is 
in  love  with  Lemniselenis,  a  girl  in  the  service  of  the 
leno  Dordalus,  and  is  anxious  to  obtain  her  freedom. 
But  as  he  himself,  being  a  slave,  can  neither  purchase 
another  slave  nor  be  patronus  of  a  freedwoman,  he  ar- 
ranges with  Dordalus  that  on  a  certain  day  he  shall 
pay  the  required  sum  of  money,  and  that  Dordalus  shall 
then  go  through  the  form  necessary  to  set  her  free.^  The 
day  approaches,  and  Toxilus  has  not  succeeded  in  getting 
the  money.  He  therefore  persuades  his  friend  Sagaristio, 
who  is  likewise  a  slave,  to  lend  him  six  hundred  nummi, 
promising  to  repay  him  in  a  few  days.  Sagaristio  pro- 
vides the  sum  in  question  by  appropriating  funds  given 
him  by  his  master  for  the  purchase  of  cattle;  the  money 
is  paid,  and  Lemniselenis  is  set  free.  In  the  meantime, 
Toxilus  has  arranged  another  scheme  to  make  the  leno 
himself  pay  back  the  sum  that  has  been  borrowed  from 
Sagaristio.  The  daughter  of  the  parasite  Saturio  is 
dressed  up  as  if  she  came  from  the  Far  East;  Sagaristio 
puts  on  Persian  garb,  and  is  introduced  to  Dordalus 
as  a  messenger  from  Toxilus'  master,  who  has  an  Arabian 
girl  for  sale.  Dordalus  sees  the  girl,  is  so  charmed  with 
her  that  he  is  willing  to  make  the  purchase  suo  periculo, 

^  Cf.   U.   V.   Wilamowitz-Moellendorff   in   Index  schol.    Gutt.    1893- 
1894,  p.   18. 

27 


28 


EETRACTATIO    IN"    PLAUTUS 


PEESA 


29 


and  pays  the  exorbitant  sum  of  sixty  minae  ^  on  the  spot. 
Of  course  the  natural  sequel  follows.  As  soon  as  the 
pseudo-Persian  is  out  of  the  way,  the  father  of  the  girl 
appears  and  threatens  a  law-suit;  and  the  play  ends 
with  an  uproarious  banquet  of  Toxilus,  Sagaristio,  and 
Lemniselenis. 

The  Persa  stands  alone  among  the  plays  of  Plautus 
in  showing  indications  of  an  original  in  Middle  Comedy. 
Wilamowitz  ^  was  the  first  scholar  to  suggest  this  date 
for  the  original  of  the  play,  and  his  theory,  which  has 
been  accepted  by  Seyffert,^  Hueffner,^  and  Leo,^  seems 
to  be  well  established,  in  spite  of  a  recent  attempt  to 
combat  it.*^  Wilamowitz's  strongest  argument  is  that  the 
play  represents  the  Persian  Empire  as  still  intact.  The 
story  of  a  messenger  who  comes  ex  Persia  (1.  498),  with 
news  of  the  capture  of  Chrysopolis  in  Arabia  by  the 
Persians,  points  to  a  date  before  the  conquests  of  Alex- 
ander. For,  while  it  is  true  that  the  account  of  the 
Persian  campaign  makes  no  pretensions  to  truthfulness,^ 
still  the  Athenian  public  must  have  demanded  a  certain 
amount  of  verisimilitude,  and  a  story  in  which  Persians 
figured  as  the  chief  actors  would  have  had  no  point  after 
the  downfall  of  the  Persian  Empire.     Therefore  we  may 

^The  regular  price  was  twenty  or  thirty  minae.  Cf.  Ritschl, 
Opmc.  II.,  p.  308,  note. 

^Wilamowitz  in  Index  schol.  Gott.  1893-1894,  pp.   13-26. 

*Seyffert  in  Bursian's  Jahresber.  1895,  pp.  39  fiF. 

»F.  Hueflfner,  De  Plauti  Comoediarum  Exemplis  Atticis,  Gottin- 
gen,    1894,   pp.    70   f.;    74-76. 

«T^eo,  Plant.  Forsch.,  p.  110;  of.  Leo  in  Hermes  41  (1906),  pp. 
441  ff. 

'M.    Meyer,   De   Plauti   Persa,    in   Comm.   phil   Jen.    8    (1907), 
pp.  145-191. 
*  Cf.  Meyer,  De  Plauti  Persa,  pp.  181  ff. 


assume  that  the  original  of  the  Persa  was  a  Greek  play 
of  the  age  of  Demosthenes. 

To  the  unfinished  technique  of  the  Greek  original  may 
be   due   certain   defects   in   the   plot    and   the    character- 
drawing  of  the  Persa.     The   exceptional  subject-matter 
of  the  play  attracted  the  attention  of  Camerarius,  who 
commented  on  it :  "  Argumentum  f  abulae  est  exile,  ama- 
tionis  servilis."     Although  servilis  amatio  is  touched  upon 
in  some  of  the  other  plays  (Amph,  658;  Mil  1007-1008; 
Stick,   431-434),    there   is   no   other   play   in   which   the 
love  of  a  slave  forms  the  main  theme. ^     But  this  argu- 
mentum exile  may  be  merely  another  indication  that  the 
play  originated  in  Middle  Comedy.     Slaves  are  promi- 
nent in  several  of  the  earlier  plays  of  Aristophanes  (we 
remember    Dionysus    and    Xanthias    in    the   Frogs,    the 
Paphlagonian  and  his  rival  in  the  Knights);  and  in  the 
Plutus,  which  stands  on  the  border-line  between  Old  and 
Middle   Comedy,   the   slave   Carion  is   one   of  the   most 
important   figures.       It  would  have  been  only  natural, 
therefore,  if  this  tradition  had  continued  and  slaves  had 
played  an  active  part  in  the  plots  of  Middle  Comedy. ^^ 
The  composition  of  the  Persa  is  poor,   although   the 
theory  of  contaminatio,  suggested  by  Ladewig  ^^  and  dis- 
cussed at  length  by  van  Ijsendijk,^^  j^^g  ^^^  ^^^^  proved. 
Van  Ijsendijk  thought  that  the  Persa  was  made  up  of 
two  plays:  (A)  the  Persa  (our  present  Acts  IV.-Y.),  in 
which   a  free-born  girl  is  put  through   a  form  of  sale, 

"Meyer,  De  Plauti  Persa,  p.   152. 

'**W.  Stiss  in  R}iein.  Mus.  65    (1910),  p.  456;  cf.  Wilamowitz  in 
In^ex  schol.   Gott.   1893-1894,  pp.   18   flf. 

"Ladewig,   Vber  den  Kanon  des  Volcatius  Sedigitus,  Neustrelitz, 
1842,  pp.  38  ff. 

"A.  van  Ijsendijk,  De  T.  Macci  Plauti  Persa,  Utrecht,  1884. 


30 


KETKACTATIO  IN  PLAUTUS 


PEESA 


31 


and  with  the  proceeds  of  this  sale  a  lover  gets  his  arnica; 
(B)  the  Boaria  or  Sagaristio,  in  which  a  slave  steals 
the  money  given  him  by  his  master  to  buy  cattle,  and 
so  helps  the  erilis  filius  to  get  his  arnica  free.  But, 
as  van  Ijsendijk's  critics  have  observed,^^  the  two  lines 
of  action  start  together,  and  are  connected  throughout 
the  play;  and  the  whole  object  of  the  pretended  sale 
is  to  get  the  leno  to  pay  for  Lemniselenis  with  his  own 
money,  and  so  repay  the  loan  of  Sagaristio.  Anyone 
who  is  not  convinced  of  the  unity  of  the  Persa  need  only 
compare  it  with  one  of  the  certainly  contaminated  plays 
{Miles  or  Poenulus).  The  length  of  the  Persa  is  only 
857  lines,  while  each  of  the  others  has  1400  lines  or 
more ;  and  the  two  threads  of  the  story  are  closely  inter- 
woven here,  while  in  the  others  the  two  plots  are  quite 
distinct,  and  the  line  of  division  clearly  marked. 

The  banquet  scene  at  the  close  is  only  loosely  con- 
nected with  the  rest  of  the  play,  but  there  is  no  reason 
for  suspecting  a  separate  origin.  The  persons  involved 
are  the  same  as  in  the  earlier  scenes,  and  their  conduct 
is  quite  consistent;  Paegnium,  for  instance,  shows  him- 
self just  the  same  merry  wag  in  Act  V.  as  he  was  in 
Act  II.  To  one  who  remembers  the  festivities  with 
which  Aristophanes  ends  his  plays — the  banquet  spread 
for  Dicaeopolis,  the  weddings  of  Peisthetairus  and  Try- 
gaeus — the  last  act  of  the  Persa  will  sound  a  familiar 
note ;  and  the  discomfiture  of  the  leno  in  the  final  scene 
will  seem  closely  akin  to  the  horseplay  of  the  Old 
Comedy.^* 

''Seyffert  in  Bursian's  JaJiresher.  1886,  pp.  lllf.;  Meyer,  De 
Plauti  Persa,  pp.  159  ff. 

"  Wilamowitz  in  Index  schol.  Gott.  1893-1894,  pp.  22  f.;  Suss  in 
Rhein.  Mus,  65    (1910),  p.  456. 


The  character-drawing  shows  the  broad  lines  of  the 
Old  Comedy  rather  than  the  finer  touches  of  the  ^N'ew. 
The  leno  Dordalus,  stupid  and  gullible  to  the  last  degree, 
is  not  far  removed  from  some  of  the  exaggerated  figures 
of  Aristophanes.  The  daughter  of  Saturio,  too,  with  her 
elevated  diction  and  her  rhetorical  sentences,  may  reflect 
the  technique  of  the  transitional  period,  when  a  free-born 
woman  was  as  yet  an  unfamiliar  figure  on  the  comic 
stage,  and  the  playwright  had  to  borrow  some  touches 
from  the  heroines  of  tragedy.  ^^ 


440 


445 


TO.    Cape    h6c    sis.     DO.    Quin    das?     TO.    Nfimmi    sexcenti    Mc 

erunt    437 
ProW,  numerati:   fdc  sit  mulier  libera, 
Atque  lific  eontinuo   addfice.     DO.    lam   faxo   hTc   erit. 
Non  li^rcle  quoi  nunc  hoc  dem  spectandfim  scio. 
TO.    Fortasse   metuis    in   manum   concr^dere? 
tMirtim  quin  citius  iam  a  foro  argentdrii 
Abefint  quam  in  cursu  r6tula  circumu6rtitur. 
Abi    istSc   trauorsis   Sngiportis   fid   forum: 
Eadem  fsta[ha]ec   facito   mClier  ad  me  trfinseat 
Per    h6rtum.     DO.    Jam   hie    faxo   aderit.     TO.    At   ne   pr6palam. 
DO.  Sapi6nter  sane.     TO.  Sdpplicatum  crSs  eat 
DO.  Ita  h^rcle  uero.     TO.  Dflm  stas,  reditum  opdrtuit. 

JfJfO  ff.  The  difiiculties  of  this  passage  have  puzzled 
scholars  for  the  last  hundred  years,  and  the  number  of 
explanations  is  almost  equal  to  the  number  of  writers 
on  the  subject.  The  dialogue  runs  quite  smoothly  down 
to  1.  439 ;  then  Dordalus  says  (1.  440),  evidently  referring 
to  the  money  that  Toxilus  has  just  paid :  Non  hercle  quoi 
nunc  hoc  dem  spectandum  scio — i.  e,,  spectandum,  utrum 
prohum  sit  necne,^^     Toxilus'  reply   (1.  441):  Fortasse 

"  Wilamowitz  in  Index  schol.  Gott.   1893-1894,  pp.  25  f. 
"Langen,  Plaut.  Stud.,  p.  334. 


32 


EETKACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


metuis  in  manum  concredere,  is  disjointed  and  hardly 
intelligible,  since  it  lacks  both  direct  object  and  dative 
of  the  person  with  in  manum  concredere.  The  couplet 
which  follows  (11.  442-443)  bears  a  striking  resemblance 
to  11.  433-436 : 


DO.    Mirtim  quin  tibi  ego  cr^derem   |   ut  id6m  milii  433 

Facer^s  quod   partim   fdciunt   argentfirii: 

Ubi  quid  credideris,  citius  extempld  foro 

Fugiflnt  quam  ex  porta  Ifldis  quom  emissQst  lepus, 

but  it  has  no  grammatical  construction  and  no  logical 
connection  with  the  rest  of  the  dialogue.  Then  (11.  444- 
448)  come  certain  directions  about  the  freeing  of  Lemni- 

selenis. 

Out  of  the  tangle  we  can  separate  11.  442-443,  which 
are  clearly  a  fragmentary  parallel  version  (probably  with 
a  line  lost  between  quin  and  citius)  of  11.  433-436.  The 
first  version,  a  comparison  of  the  money-changers  to  a 
hare  at  the  games,  may  be  Plautine,  since  we  know  of 
the  use  of  animals  in  the  games  before  the  death  of 
Plautus.  (Liv.  39,  22  tells  of  a  venatio  data  leonum  et 
pantherum  in  the  year  186  B.  C.)  This  reference  is 
paralleled  by  one  to  the  ostrich  in  an  earlier  scene  (1.  199 
marinus  passer  per  circum),  and  the  two  together  make 
it  probable  that  there  was  a  keen  interest  in  venationes 
at  the  time  that  the  play  was  produced.  The  second 
simile  (11.  442-443),  which  is  much  more  general,  may 
have  been  added  after  this  interest  had  declined. 

"With  this  intrusive  couplet  removed,  it  is  possible  to 
trace  a  certain  connection  in  the  dialogue.  Toxilus  pays 
the  money,  saying,  "  Set  the  woman  free,  and  then  bring 
her  to  me  immediately."  Dordalus  murmurs,  half  to 
himself,  as  he  examines  the  money,  "  How  am  I  to  know 


PERSA 


33 


whether  this  is  good  or  not  ?  "  and  Toxilus  adds,  seeing 
his  hesitation,  "Are  you  afraid  to  hand  her  over  to 
me?''^^  Then  he  goes  on  rapidly:  ''Take  this  side 
street  to  the  forum ;  [have  your  money  tested  and  set  her 
free]  ;  then  bring  her  back  secretly  by  the  same  path. 
[I  want  her  company  to-day  myself]  ;  to-morrow  she  may 
go  to  sacrifice  for  her  liberation."  But  even  so  there  is 
much  that  is  not  clear.  We  do  not  quite  get  the  force 
of  metuis  .  .  .  concredere;  no  explanation  is  given  for 
the  injunction  to  secrecy  (11.  444-446)  ;  and  the  reason 
why  the  sacrifice  is  to  be  postponed  until  the  morrow  must 
be  inferred. 

It  seems  probable  that  the  end  of  this  scene,  like  a 
later  section  (11.  738  if.),  has  suffered  considerable  cut- 
ting, which  has  left  only  the  bare  essentials  of  the  dia- 
logue, without  the  necessary  connection.  If  this  is  so, 
we  may  put  down  11.  442-443  as  a  parallel  version  of 
11.  433-436,  and  say  that  11.  440-441,  444-448  are  a 
shortened  version  of  a  scene  now  lost. 

P  has  the  verses  in  the  order  of  the  Gtoetz-Schoell  text. 

A  agrees  with  P  through  I.  443,  then  deest  444-478  (35  lines  of 
senarius).  The  passage  contains  three  scene-headings,  which,  if 
given  in  the  regular  form,  would  have  occupied  6  lines  more,  making 
a  total  of  41  lines.  The  one  sheet  missing  in  A  would  have  given 
space  for  only  38  lines  in  all.  But  it  is  possible  that  some  of  the 
headings  were  missing  in  A  (Cf.  iv.,  9,  where  A  makes  no  division), 
or  that  the  scene-headings  occupied  only  one  line  each    (Cf.  iir..  2; 


"The  object  of  the  verb  has  commonly  been  taken  as  arr/entum, 
but  there  is  no  reason  why  mulierem  should  not  be  supplied  from 
1.  438.  It  is  the  woman  who  is  Toxilus'  great  concern  at  this  point 
(Cf.  11.  438,  445,  447.)  The  use  of  concredere  with  a  person  as  the 
direct  object  is  supported  by  Capt.  348  (filium)  ;  Cist.  245  (ami- 
cam);  and  manus  in  the  technical  sense  of  the  power  of  a  man 
over  the  women  of  his  household  is  too  well  known  to  need  comment. 


a4 


EETRACTATIO    IN . PLAUTUS 


m.,  3  in  A.^'     In  any  case,  A  has  11.  442-443,  which  are  the  most 
suspicious  verses. 


TO.   Sagarlstio,  heus,  exi  atque  educe  ulrginem 

Et   istds   tabellas   quSs   consignauf   tibi, 

Quas  tu  attulisti  mi  Sb  ero  meo  usque  e  Persia. 


460 


Jf60-Jf61,  This  couplet  seems  to  be  a  later  insertion, 
introduced  to  prepare  the  audience  for  the  sudden  appear- 
ance of  the  letter  in  1.  497.  No  mention  has  been  made 
of  this  letter  in  the  previous  plans  of  Toxilus,^^  and 
when  the  trick  is  finally  played  on  Dordalus,  it  is  not 
Sagaristio,  but  Toxilus  himself,  who  hands  over  the  tablet 
(1.  497).  The  two  lines  are  an  awkward  addition  after 
1.  459,  and  the  dependence  of  tabellas  upon  educere  is 
unparalleled.^*^ 

A  deest. 


TO.  Age  illfic  apscede  pr6cul  e  conspectG:    [SA.]    taee 

Vbi  ctim  lenone  m6  uidebis  c6nloqui. 

Id  erit  adeundi   tempus.     nunc  ag4rite   uos. 


467 


J,67-J^68.  These  verses  are  identical  with  727-728,  and 
must  therefore  be  regarded  with  suspicion  in  one  of 
the  two  places.  Some  connecting  link  is  necessary  be- 
tween IV.,  2  and  IV.,  3,  and  we  must  either  retain  467- 


"  The  latter  explanation  is  suggested  by  Studemund.  See  his 
note  on  fol.  57 5v. 

"  A  discussion  of  all  the  details  of  the  plan  was  of  course  not 
necessary.  The  trick  is  perfectly  clear  without  a  previous  mention 
of  the  letter,  as  is  the  similar  trick  in  Bacch.  TV.,  9,  where  1.  941  is 
the  only  preparation  for  the  presentation  of  the  letter  in  11.  997  flF. 

*"Langen,  Plant.  Stud.,  p.  178. 


PERSA 


35 


468  or  assume  that  these  verses  have  crowded  out  other 
directions  to  Sagaristio. 


A  deest. 


DO.  Itibedum  ea  hoc  acc^dat  ad  me.     SA.  I  sfine  ac  morem  illf 

gere         605 
P^rcontare,  exqufre  quiduis.     TO.    Age,  age  nunc  tu:   in  pro6lium 
Vfde   ut   ingrediare  atispicato.     VI.    Liquidumst  auspicitim:    tace. 
Ctirabo,  ut  praedSti  pulcre  ad  cfistra  conuortdmini. 
TO.   Concede   istuc:    6go   illam  adducam.     DO.   Age,   Hi  rem  ease 

in  nostrum  putas. 
TO.  6hodum  hue,  uirgo.    ulde  sis  quid  agas.    VI.  TSceas:  curabo 

Ut  uoles.         610 

605-610.     The  reader  who  tries  to  imagine  the  stage 
"business"   of  this  part  of  the  play  finds   himself   in 
difficulty.     Dordalus  has  expressed  a  wish  to  question  the 
girl,    and   the   pseudo-Persian    Sagaristio   has   given   his 
permission  (11.  605-606).     Then  Toxilus  speaks  11.  606  f. 
(Age,  age  nunc  tu:  in  proelium  vide  ut  ingrediare  auspi- 
cate) to  the  girl,  and  she  replies  in  a  low  tone.     But  in 
the  very  next  line  Toxilus  is  saying  to  Dordalus,  Concede 
istuc;  ego  illam  adducam.     His  next  speech,   an   aside 
to  the  girl,  and  her  reply  (609-610)  repeat  the  sense  of 
11.  606-608,  and  have  in  several  places  identical  phrasing 
(607  vide,  cf.  610  vide;  607  tace,  cf.  610  taceas;  608 
curabo,   cf.    610    curabo).     Clearly   we   have   here   two 
alternative  versions    (605-608;    609-610),   of  which   the 
first  is  the  cleverer  and  therefore  probably  the  genuine.  ^^ 

• 

A  has  605-610  in  the  order  in  which  they  appear  in  the  Goetz- 
Schoell   text. 

P.  omits  608,  610   {i.  e.,  one  line  of  each  version). 


^Cf.  J.  H.  Gray  in  Class.  Rev.  14   (1900),  p.  24. 


36 


EETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


DO.    T6xile,   quid   ag6?     TO.   Bi   deaeque    te   Sgitant    iratf.    [et] 

scelus,  666 

Qui  ha<n>c  non  properes  d^stinare.     DO.    tHabeto.     TO.  Eu.  prae- 

datu's  probe:    abi,  argentum  ecfer  hue. 
N6n   edepol    minis   trecentis   cirast:    fecisti   lucri. 
SA.    Hetis  tu,  etiam  pro  u6stimentis  hflc  decern  acoed^nt  minao. 
DO.    Abscedent  enim,  non  accedent.     TO.    Tfice  sis:   non  tu  illiim 

uides  670 

Qua^rere  ansam,  inf6ctum  ut  faciat?  abisne  atque  argenttim  petis? 
♦  ***♦***  atque  ut  dignflst  perit.  67  P 
DO.    Heus   tu,    serua    istfim.     TO.    Quin   tu    intro    is?     DO.    Abeo 

atque    argentum    adfero. 


666  ff.     A  shortening  of  the  scene  seems  to  be  indicated 
by  the  half -line  abi,  argentum  ecfer  hue,  which  is  appended 
to  1.  667  in  P.     Apparently  this  phrase  was  substituted 
for  eu,  praedatus  probe  (1.  667)/^  with  the  result  that 
the  Palatine  manuscripts  have  retained  both  endings,  while 
in  A  the  line   ending  <eu  praedatu^s>  probe  appears  just 
before  1.  669.     There  are  further  signs  of  change  at  the 
very  end  of  the  scene.     The  fragment  of  a  line  atque 
ut  dignust  perit  (671^),  which  is  preserved  only  in  A, 
seems   to  belong  to    a  bit   of  comment   after   the    Ze/io's 
departure,  and  is  hardly  suitable  before  1.  672.-^     To  the 
first  half  of  this  fragmentary  line  may  belong  the  adverb 
interibi,  cited  by  the  Glossarium  Plautinum  from  some 
point  in  the  Persa  between  1.  588  and  1.   677,  but  not 
to  be  found  in  our  present  text.^*     It  is  quite  possible, 
therefore,  that  we  have  here  traces  of  some  such  short- 
ening as  this: 


"Cf.  Leo,  Ed.    (1896),  ad  loc. 
=«Cf.  Leo,  Ed.    (1896).  ad  loc. 


24 


The  strictness  with  which  the  author  of  the  glossary  follows 
the  order  of  lines  in  the  text  of  Plautus  makes  it  improbable  that 
interibi  in  this  position  refers  to  1.  165  of  the  play.  Cf.  Ritschl. 
Opusc.  11.,  pp.  266  ff.;  Schoell.   Ed.    (1892),   Praef..   p.   xx. 


PEKSA 


37 


667.  DO.    Habeto.     TO.    Abi,    argentum    ecfer   hue. 

67P     (Schoell's  supplement)     DO.    Interibi  opperire.     SA.    Aegre 

avidus  abit   atque   ut   dignust   perit. 

A  is  very  illegible  at  this  point.  The  end  of  665  is  preserved, 
and  then  follows  a  space  of  three  lines,  which  may  have  contained 
666  and  667,  the  latter  divided  so  as  to  take  up  two  lines.  After 
this  it  has  a  line  ending  probe,  and  then  the  ends  of  669-671,  67P, 
672.  So  A  apparently  omitted  668,  and  added  67 1^  which  does  not 
occur  in  P. 

P  has  667  in  the  form  -  -  -  habeto,  eu  praedatus  probe,  abi 
argentum  ecfer  hue,  and  omits  671^. 


Vanlloquidorus    Virginisuendonides 
t  Nugiepiloquides    Argentumextenebr6nides 
Tedigniloquides    NQmmosexpalponides 
Quodsemelarripides    Ntimquameripides :    €m   tibi. 


702 


705 


70Jf.  The  absurd  patronymics  of  1.  704,  which  mean 
either :  "  Talk-to-you-as-you-deserve-son,  N^onsense-son, 
Flatter-son,"  or  "  Talk-to-you-as-you-deserve-son,  Flatter- 
money-out-of-you-son,"  according  as  we  follow  the  reading 
of  A  or  P,  repeat  the  sense  of  the  preceding  line :  "  Talk- 
nonsense-to-you-son,  Bore-your-money-out-of-you-son."  ^^ 
The  line  may  have  been  substituted  to  expand  the  joke. 

The  line  appears  in  both  A  and  P,  though  A  reads  nugidespalpo- 
nides,   and   P   nundesexpalponides. 


DO.    Immo  equidem  gratiam  719 

Tibi,   T6xile,   habeo:    n^m   te   sensi   s^dulo 
Mihi  dare  bonam   operam.     TO.    Tlbine   ego?   immo   t  sedulo. 
DO.    Attfit,  oblitus  sum  fntus  dudum  edicere 
Quae   u6lui   edicta.     ads^rua  banc.     TO.    Saluast   ha6c   quidem. 
VI.    Pat^r    nunc   cessat.     TO.    Quid    si    admoneam?     VI.    T6mpus 

est. 


=5 


Cf.  Leo,  Ed.    (1896),  ad  loc. 


38 


BETEACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


TO.   Heus,  Saturio,  exi.    nfinc  est  ilia  occ&sio  725 

Inimlcum   ulcisci.     SA.    Ecce  me:    numquld  moror? 
TO.    Age  illGc  abscede  pr6cul  e  conspectti:    tace. 
Vbi  cflm  lenone  m6  uidebis  c6nloqui, 
Turn  tflrbam  facito.     SA.    Dictum  sapienti  sat  est. 
TO.    Tunc,  quando  abiero—     <SA.>     Quln  taces?  scio  quid  uelis. 

730 
DORDAIiVS.  TOXIIiVS.  VIRGO. 

LENO  SERVOS 

DO.    Transcldi  loris  6miiis  adueni^ns  domi: 

Ita  mlhi  supellex  squSlet  atque  aed^s  meae. 

TO.   Redls  tu  tandem?    DO.   R^deo.     TO.    Ne  ego  hodi6  tibi 

Bona  mdlta  feci.     DO.    Ffiteor:   habeo  grdtiam. 

722  if.  Much  has  been  written  about  the  defects  of 
the  play  at  this  point. ^^  It  is  strange  that  Dordalus 
should  go  off  the  stage  immediately  after  he  has  purchased 
the  supposed  Persian  girl,  and  should  leave  her  in  the 
care  of  Toxilus,  instead  of  taking  her  inside  the  house 
with  him;  even  more  strange  that  he  should  reappear 
six  lines  later,  announcing  (1.  731),  Transcidi  loris  omnis 
adveniens  domi.  In  the  meantime,  Saturio  has  emerged 
from  his  hiding-place  and  has  been  given  some  brief 
and  quite  inapposite  directions  about  the  line  of  action 
to  follow  when  the  leno  returns.  Two  verses  of  this 
dialogue  (727-728)  repeat  a  couplet  earlier  in  the  play 
(467-468).  Of  the  remaining  lines,  several  show  the 
stock  phrases  of  comedy  (726  numquid  moror,  cf.  1.  462; 
729  dictum  sapienti  sat  est,  cf.  Ter.  Phorm,  541;  734 
bona  multa  feci,  cf.  1.  263).  Immediately  after  the 
return  of  Dordalus  (1.  734)  the  conversation  goes  back 
to  the  subject  under  discussion  before  he  left  (1.  721)  ; 
and  the  dozen  lines  intervening  seem  to  have  no  purpose 

^Qi.  especially  Goetz  in  Acta  soc.  phil.  Lips.  6  (1876),  pp.  300  f.; 
Wilamowitz  in  Index  schol.  Gott.  1893-1894,  p.  21;  Meyer,  De  Plauti 
Persa,  pp.  172  ff. 


PEKSA 


39 


but  to  prepare  for  the  entrance  of  Saturio  at  1.  738.^"^ 
But  the  plan  had  been  that  Saturio  should  appear  sud- 
denly (cf.  11.  162-164),  and  his  opening  lines  suit  a 
first  appearance.  Therefore  11.  722-734  are  probably  a 
later  addition. 

A  has  the  whole  passage. 
P.  omits  1.  730. 


SA.    Nisi  ^go  illun<c>  hominem  pdrdo,  perii.     atque  optume  738 

Eecum  fpsum   ante   aedes.     VI.    Sfilue   multum,   ml   pater. 
SA.     Salu6,   mea  gnata.     DO.    Ei,  P€rsa  me  pesstim  dedit.       740 
VI.    Pater   hlc  mens  est.     DO.    Hem,  quid?   pater?   perii   6ppido. 
Quid  ego  igitur  cesso  inf^lix  lament^rier 
MinSs   sexaginta?     SA.    6go   pol   te   faciilm,   scelus, 
Te   quoque   etiara   ipsum  ut   Idmenteris.     DO.    6ccidi. 
SA.    Age  ambula  in  ius,  16no.     DO.    Quid  me  in  itis  uocas?       745 
SA.    Illi[cJ    Spud  praetorem  dicam:    sed  ego  in  i(is  uoco. 
DO.    Xonne   dntestaris?     SA.    Tudn   ego   causa,   cfiruufex, 
Quoiqudm  mortali   llbero  auris  dtteram, 
Qui  hie  commercaris  cfuis  homines  llberos? 

DO.     Sine    dIcam.      SA.     Nolo.      DO.   Atidi.       SA.    Surdus  sum: 

fimbula.  750 

Sequere  hSc,  sceleste,  f6les  uirginSria. 
Sequere   hdc,   mea   gnata,   me   tisque   ad   praetorem.     VI.    Sequor. 

7 88  ff.  Ritschl  ^^  observed  that  the  movement  of  the 
play  after  the  close  of  IV.,  8  was  very  hurried,  and  other 
editors  have  agreed  with  him.  In  particular,  IV.,  9 
seems  to  have  suffered  from  shortening.  The  discovery 
of  the  pseudo-Persian  girl's  identity  is  made  far  too 
quickly  (11.  739-740),  and  the  question  of  Dordalus:  Hem^ 
quid?  pater?  (1.  741)  is  absurd  after  11.  739-740.  Satu- 
rio, his  daughter,  and  Dordalus,  are  suddenly  dismissed 
from  the  stage,  and  we  hear  nothing  of  what  takes  place 
between  them  in  the  forum.     Then,  too,  we  are  puzzled 


"  Meyer,  De  Plauti  Persa,  p.   174. 
=«  Ritschl,  Ed.    (1853),  Praef.,  p.  ix. 


40 


KETKACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


PEESA 


41 


by  the  fact  that  the  parasite,  whose  sole  object  in  under- 
taking the  deceit  of  the  leno  has  been  to  provide  himself 
with  a  dinner  (11.  140-147;  329  ff.).  does  not  appear  at 
the  banquet  in  Act  V.,  while  Dordalus,  who  left  to 
defend  himself  before  the  praetor  (1.  752),  re-enters  at 
1.  778.  The  difficulties  are  explained  if  we  suppose  that 
IV.,  9  is  the  shortened  form  of  a  scene  in  which  the  leno 
plead  for  mercy  and  finally,  by  the  offer  of  a  sum  of 
money,  induced  Saturio  to  drop  his  legal  proceedings, 
take  the  money  and  his  daughter,  and  go  home.^^ 


A  and  P  have  738-741   in  the  same  form, 
end  of  the  play. 


Then  A  deest  to  the 


The  Persa  offers  comparatively  slight  evidence  for  the 
changes  of  the  Plautine  Kevival.  There  are  a  few  in- 
stances of  parallel  versions— 11.  433-486,  442-443;  605- 
608,  609-610 ;  703,  704.  An  attempt  to  bring  the  scene 
to  a  close  seems  to  be  indicated  by  the  confusion  in  the 
manuscripts  after  1.  666.  The  play  as  a  whole  is  notice- 
ablv  short,  and  the  dialogue  in  two  of  the  scenes  (11. 
440-448;  738-752)  is  so  hurried  and  disconnected  that 
we  are  justified  in  assuming  a  shortening  in  which  the 
original  version  was  lost.  On  the  other  hand,  there  are 
a  few  places  (11.  722-734,  and  possibly  460-461),  where 
an  insertion  seems  to  have  been  made  in  order  to  prepare 
for  a  later  scene.^® 

2»  Meyer,  De  Plauti  Persa,  pp.  177  flf. 

^In  addition  to  the  passages  discussed  in  detail,  the  following 
lines  have  been  suspected:  60,  240,  280-295,  453-454,  562,  673-682, 
694-699,   833-851. 

Of  these  lines,  A  is  missing  for  60,  240.  453-454,  833-851.  Both 
A  and  P  have  280-295  (except  that  P  transposes  293,  294),  562, 
673-682,   694-699. 

The  following  lines  show  minor  variations:  399,  485,  498,  500, 
515-516,  574,  597. 


N 


The  indications  of  change  are  not  confined  to  the  Pala- 
tine manuscripts.  A  has  the  beginnings  of  the  two  short- 
ened scenes  (11.  440  ff. ;  738  ff.)  in  the  same  form  as  P, 
and  probably  contained  the  whole.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  are  three  passages  in  which  A  and  P  alike  show 
traces  of  retractatio,  but  A  has  preserved  a  larger  number 
of  the  suspicious  lines.  Far  from  showing  the  purer 
text,  therefore,  A  gives  all  the  later  versions  that  P  gives, 
and  has  some  of  them  in  fuller  form. 


POENULUS 


43 


CHAPTEE  11. 


POENULUS 


The   Poenulus   tells   the   story   of   two   sisters    in   the 
service  of  the  leno  Ljcus,  who  gain  their  freedom  through 
Agorastocles,  the  lover  of  the  elder  girl,  and  his  slave  Mil- 
phio.     In  the  first  scene,  Milphio  evolves  a  scheme  which 
he  promises  will  give  Agorastocles  not  only  his  sweetheart, 
but  the  whole  household  of  the  leno  as  well.     The  vilicus 
of  Agorastocles,  who  happens  to  be  in  the  city,  and  who 
is  a  stranger  to  Lycus,  is  to  be  dressed  up  as  a  foreign 
soldier  and  sent  to  the  leno  with  a  request  for  an  evening's 
pleasure.     Then  Agorastocles  is  to  appear  and  demand 
his  slave,  and,  upon  the  leno's  denial  of  all  knowledge 
of  the  slave,  Agorastocles  is  to  drag  him  off  to  court. 
This  plan  is  carried  out  with  the  help  of  advocati  from 
the  forum,  who  introduce  the  newcomer  to  Lycus  and 
witness  the  whole  proceeding.     But  Milphio,  the  author 
of  the  scheme,  disappears  from  the  action,  and  the  pro- 
posed law-suit  never  takes  place.     Instead,  Milphio  enters 
at  the  beginning  of  Act  IV.,  raging  against  the  leno  and 
threatening  his  destruction,   as  if  Acts  I.-III.   had   no 
existence.     He  learns  from  the  slave  of  Lycus  that  the 
sweetheart  of  Agorastocles  and  her  sister  are  really  free- 
born  Carthaginians,  and,  knowing  that  his  young  master 
is  also  Carthaginian  by  birth,  he  confidently  plans  their 
release.     Just  at  this  moment  the  Carthaginian  Hanno 
appears,  on  a  search  for  his  two  daughters  and  his  nephew, 
all  of  whom  were  stolen  away  as  children.     The  nephew 
is  discovered  to  be  Agorastocles,  the  adopted  son  of  Han- 
42 


f, 


no's  old  guest-friend.  Milphio  then  proposes  that  Hanno 
aid  in  outwitting  the  leno  and  obtaining  the  freedom 
of  the  two  girls  by  pretending  that  they  are  his  daughters. 
The  fiction  proves  to  be  only  too  true,  and  the  happy 
father  promises  the  hand  of  his  elder  daughter  to  her 
lover.  When  the  leno  returns,  desperate  over  the  ruin 
that  has  already  come  upon  him,  he  finds  three-fold 
vengeance  waiting  at  the  hands  of  Hanno,  Agorastocles, 
and  the  soldier  to  whom  he  had  promised  the  younger 
girl. 

Even  this  hasty  sketch  is  sufficient  to  show  the  break 
between  Act  III.  and  Act  IV.,  and  the  repetition  in  the 
two  plots  against  the  leno,  A  more  detailed  study  of 
the  play  brings  out  other  difficulties.  The  first  act  pre- 
sents the  two  girls  as  meretrices  of  the  ordinary  sort, 
who  are  already  familiar  with  their  calling  (cf.  especially 
11.  233-23G;  265-270);  in  the  last  act,  they  are  repre- 
sented as  entering  upon  their  profession  on  the  very  day 
that  the  play  opens  (11.  1139-1140),  and  their  conversation 
is  full  of  sentiments  befitting  their  noble  birth  (cf.  11. 
1185-1186;  1201-1204).  In  the  first  half  of  the  play, 
too,  they  have  no  prospect  of  freedom  aside  from  the 
lover  of  the  elder  sister  (11.  360-363)  ;  in  the  second,  the 
prophecy  of  good  fortune  immediately  makes  them  hope 
for  assistance  from  their  parents  (1.  1208).  We  note, 
too,  that,  though  the  prologue  gives  the  scene  of  the  play 
as  Calydon  (11.  72,  94;  cf.  1057,  1181),  Milphio  pro- 
mises Adelphasium  that  she  shall  become  civis  Attica. 
(1.  372). 

It  is  almost  certain  that  the  Poenulus  combines  two 
different  plots,  one  covering  roughly  the  first  three  acts 
of  the  play,  and  the  other  the  last  two.  The  scene  of 
the  first  was  laid  in  Athens;  that  of  the  second    (the 


•*«•» 


44 


KETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


POENULUS 


45 


Kapxv^ovio^,     of  which  the  plot  is  given  in  the  prologue) 
in  Calydon.     The  two  originals   seems  to  have  had   as 
common  elements  two  sisters   in  the  service  of   a   leno, 
and   a   festival   of   Venus,    at   which   the   sisters   offered 
acceptable  sacrifices,  but  the  offerings  of  the  leno  were 
rejected.     The  two  plots  are  necessarily  bound  together 
to  some  extent,  especially  at  the  beginning  and  the  end 
of  the  play,  but  their  general  outlines  can  still  be  recog- 
nized.    The  first  presents  two  Athenian  meretrices,  with 
the  elder  of  whom  a  youth  is  in  love.     To  obtain  her 
freedom,  he  and  his  slave  play  a  trick  which  results  in 
a   law-suit    and   the    leno's   ruin.     In   the      Kapx^3oVto9, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  girls  are  Carthaginians  of  noble 
birth,   who  are  to  enter  upon  their  calling  on  the  day 
that  the  play  begins.     Their  release  comes  about  through 
their  father,  who  arrives  in  Calydon  at  the  proper  mo- 
ment, finds  his  daughters,  and  discovers  his  nephew  in 
the  lover  of  the  older  girl. 

The  line  of  division  between  the  two  plots  in  the 
Poenulus  is  so  clear  that  it  attracted  attention  compara- 
tively early. ^  Teuffel,^  noticing  the  distinctness  of  the 
two  plots  against  the  leno,  and  the  contradiction  about 
the  scene  of  the  play,  decided:  '' Beim  Poenulus  lage 
die  Annahme  einer  Contamination  ziemlich  nahe,  wenn 
dadurch  etwas  gewonnen  ware."  But  Teuffel's  hint  was 
not  followed  up  for  fully  twenty  years.  Then  Keinhardt  ^ 
and  "Francken  ^  studied  the  composition  of  the  play  with 

^  G.  Langrehr,  De  Plduti  Poenulo,  Friedland,  1883,  p.  14,  says  that 
Rapp  was  the  first  to  suspect  contaminatio  in  the  Poenulus. 

=  W.  Teuflfel  in  Rhein.  Mus.  8  (1853),  pp.  35  ff.   {  =  8tud.  u.  Char"., 

pp.   337   ff.) 

*L.  Reinhardt  in  Studemund's  Studien  auf  d.   Gehiete  d.  archai- 
schen  Lateins,  Vol.  i.    (Berlin,  1873),  pp.  109  ff. 

*C.  M.  Francken  in  Mnem.  4  (1876),  pp.  146-175. 


great  care.  The  analyses  which  they  made  have  been 
modified  and  corrected  in  detail  by  Langen,^  Leo,^  and 
Karsten,"^  but  the  main  lines  of  their  division  still  remain 
unchanged. 


Earum   hlc    adulescens    Alteram   efflictim   perit 
Suam  sibi  cognatam  inprtidens,  neque  s<c>it  qua6  si<e>t, 
Neque  earn  timquam  tetigit:   ita  eum  leno  mdcerat: 
(Neque  qufcquam  cum  ea  f^cit  etiamnfim  stupri, 
Neque  dtixit  umquam :  n^que  ille  uoluit  mlttere : ) 
Quia  amdre  cernit,  tdngere  hominem  u6lt  bolo. 


96 


100 


99-100.  This  couplet,  which  gives  the  substance  of 
1.  98  in  a  little  fuller  form,  is  probably  to  be  set  down 
to  retractatio. 


A  deest  1-281. 


(Ehem,  pa^ne  oblitus  sfim  relicuom  dlcere. 

Ille  qui  adoptauit  htinc  pro  filio  sibi 

Is  lUi  Poeno,  huitis  patri   |,  hosp6s  fuit.) 


118 


120 


118-120,  These  lines  may  have  been  added  to  explain 
a  little  more  fully  the  situation  indicated  in  1.  75  emit 
Jiospitalem  is  filium  inprudens  senex.  The  passage  is 
especially  disturbing  because  it  breaks  the  connection 
between  the  subject  of  the  next  sentence  (1.  121  is,  or 
1.  124  hie — cf.  below)  and  its  antecedent,  unquestionably 
the  Carthaginian  who  has  been  under  discussion  in  11. 
104-115. 

A   deest. 


^Langen,  Plant.  Stud.,  pp.  181  ff. 

"Leo.  Plant.  Forsch..  pp.  153  ff. 

'H.  J.  Karsten  in  Mnem.  29    (1901),  pp.  363-387. 


46 


KETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


POENULUS 


47 


Is  h6die  hue  ueniet  r^p[p]erietque  hie  fllias  121 

Et  htinc  sui   fratris   fllium,   utquidem  didici   ego. 

Ego  Ibo,  ornabor:   u69  £iequo  animo  noscite. 

(Hie  qui  h6die  ueniet.  r§p[p]eriet  suas  fllias 

Et  hane  sui  fratris  fflium.     dehinc  c6terum  125 

Quod  r6stat,  restant  aii<i>  qui  faeiSnt  palam. 

Val^te:   adeste.     ibo:    alius  nune  fieri  uolo.) 

Val6te  atque  adiuuSte  ut  uos  seru6t  Salus. 

121-128.  The  close  of  the  prologue  undoubtedly  con- 
tains two  versions.  There  is  almost  exact  verbal  repe- 
tition in  11.  121-122  and  124-125;  two  announcements 
are  made  of  the  speaker's  proposed  change  of  dress  (123; 
127)  ;  and  the  farewell  to  the  audience  is  given  in  two 
different  forms  (127;  128).  Seyffert «  is  probably  right 
in  arranging  the  two  versions:  (1)  11.  121-123,  128  ;  (2)  11. 
124-127.  Of  the  two,  the  second  is  probably  the  genuine. 
Alius  nunc  fieri  volo  (1.  127)  is  more  vivid  than  orrmhor 
(1.  123),  and  the  collocation  restat,  restant  (1.  126)  is 
quite  in  the  style  of  Plautus. 

P  has  the  verses  in  the  order  of  the  Goetz-Schoell  text,  except 
that  1.  126  appears  after  1.  127. 
A  deest. 


A  deest. 


AD.    Xegoti  sibi  qui  uol^t  uim  parSre, 
Nauem   et  mulierem  haec   duo  comparato. 
Nam  ntillae  magls  res  dua6  plus  negOti 
Hab^nt,  forte  si  6eceperls  exornfire, 
Neque  umquam  satis  hae  duae  res  ornantur, 
Xeque  els  uUa  orn^ndi  satis  satietfis  est. 


210 


215 


2H.  The  thought  of  11.  214,  215  is  exactly  the  same. 
The  phrase  duae  res  in  1.  214  is  an  awkward  repetition 
from  1.  212,  and  the  line  is  unmetrical.  In  line  215, 
on  the  contrary,  the  quibble  satis  satietas  sounds  Plautine. 
The  first  line  is  therefore  probably  due  to  a  later  hand. 

•0.  Seyffert,  Studia  Plautina,  Berlin,   1874,  p.   11. 


Atque  ha^  ut  loqu6r,  nunc  dom6  docta  dico. 
Nam  n6s  usque  ab  afirora  ad  h6c  quod  di^ist 
(Postquam  aurora  inluxit  numquam  ooncessauimus ) 
Ex  Industria  fimbae  numquSm  concessdmus 
Laufiri  aut  fricfiri  aut  terg^ri  aut  orndri. 


216 


220 


218,  Another  variant,  also  unskillful  metrically,  seems 
to  be  presented  by  1.  218.  This  line  repeats  11.  217,  219, 
and  was  probably  intended  to  take  their  place. 


A   deest. 


AD.    fnuidia    in    me    nflmquam    innatast    n^ue    malitia,    m4a 

soror :         300 
Bono  me<d>  esse  ing^nio  ornatam  quam  afiro  multo  mduolo. 
(Atirum  id  fortuna  Inuenitur,   ndtura  ingenitim  bonum: 
B6nam  ego  quam  bedtam  me  esse  nimio  dici  mduolo.) 
M^retricem  pudorem  gerere  mdgis  decet  quam  ptirpuram. 
(Mdgisque  meretric6m  pudorem  quam  atirum  gerere  c6ndecet.)   305 
Pfilcrum  ornatum  ttirpes  mores  p^ius  caeno  c6nlinunt: 
L^pidi   mores   ttirpem   ornatum   fdcile   factis   c6mprobant. 

300  ff.  Fond  as  Plautus  was  of  sententiae,  he  would 
hardly  have  made  Adelphasium  utter  the  whole  of  this 
speech  as  it  stands  in  our  text.  N'early  every  line  in  it 
has  been  suspected  by  some  one  of  the  editors.  We  can, 
however,  be  sure  of  retractatio  only  in  1.  304,  which 
repeats  1.  305  almost  word  for  word,  omitting  the  neces- 
sary conjunction  -que^  and  substituting  decet  for  the  Plau- 
tine verb  condecet.  The  second  version  seems  to  have 
been  composed  to  introduce  a  new  detail  {purpura)  into 
the  list  of  the  courtesan's  ornaments.^ 

The  whole  passage  occurs  in  both  A  and  P,  but  A  has  the  order: 
303,  305,  304. 


•Langen,  Plant.  Stud.,  pp.  338  f. 


48 


KETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTrS 


POENULUS 


49 


Sfc  enim  dicer^s,  sceleste:  hulus  uoluptas,  te  6psecro,  387 

Hulus  mel,  huius  cor,  hulus  labellum,  hulus  lingua,  huius  sauium, 
Hulus  delicia,,   huifis  salus  amo^na,  huius   festluitas, 
Hufus  colustra,  huifls  dulciculus  c^seus,  mastlgia:  390» 

(Htiius  cor,  huitis  studium,  huius  sauium,  mastlgia.)  390^ 

^90^  The  terms  of  endearment  in  1.  390,*  except  for 
studium,  merely  repeat  those  of  1.  388,  and  the  epithet 
mastigia  addressed  to  Milphio  is  taken  from  1.  390.  It  is 
possible  that  the  word  studium  was  a  new  bit  of  slang 
in  the  Kevival  Age,  and  that  the  alternative  line  was 
composed  for  the  purpose  of  introducing  this   novelty. 

P  has  the  order:    389,  390*,  390^ 

A  omits  390*  (a  genuine  verse),  but  writes  dulciculus  caseus 
above  savium  mastigia  of  390^  showing  that  some  form  of  the 
line  must  have  stood  in  the  archetype  of  A. 


AG.    fta   me   di    ament,   tSrdo   amico    nll[i]    est   quicquam    ina€- 


504 
505 


510 


quius, 
Pra6sertim  homini  amSnti  qui  quicquid  agit  properat  omnia. 
Slcut  ego  hos  duco  aduocatos,  h6mines  spissigradlssumos, 
Tardiores  quSm  corbitae  stint  in  tranquill6  mari. 
Atque  equidem  hercle  d^dita  opera  amlcos  fugitaiil  senes: 
Sci[e]bam  aetati   tfirdiores.   m^tui   meo   amorl   moram. 
N^uiquam  hos  procos  mihi  elegi  loripedis,  tardissumos. 
Quin  si  ituri  hodie  6stis,  ite  aut  Ite  hinc  in  malSm  crucem. 
Slcine  oportet  ire  amicos  h6mini  amanti  operam  datum? 
Nam  fstequidem  gradtis  succretust  crlbro  pollinfirio: 
Nisi  cum  pedicis  c6ndidicistis  Is<t>oc  grassarl  gradu. 
ADV.   Hefls    tu,    quamquam    nos    uidemur    tibi    plebeii    et    pati- 

peres,  515 

SI  nee  recte  dlcis  nobis  dlues  de  summo  loco, 

Dluitem  audact^r   solemus  m^ctare   inforttinio. 

N^c  tibi  nos  obnlxi[i]   sumus  istCic,  quid  tu  ames  aut  oderis. 

Quom  argentum  pro  c§pite  dedimus,  nostrum  dedimus,  non  tuom. 

Llberos  nos  4sse  oportet:  nos  te  nili  p^ndimus:  520 

N€  tuo  nos  am6ri  seruos  [tuos]  #sse  addictos  c^nseas. 

Llberos  homines  per  urbem  m6dico  magis  par  6st  gradu 

fre:  seruile  ^sse  duco  f^tinantem  ctirrere. 


k 


Pra^sertira  in  re  populi  placida  atque  Interfectis  hostibus 

N6n  decet  tumultuari.    86d  si  properab^s  magis,  525 

Prldie  nos  te  dduocatos  hGc  duxisse  op6rtuit. 

N6  tu  opinere,  hatid  quisquam  hodie  nostrum  curret  p6r  uias 

N6que  nos  populus   pro  cerritis  Insectabit  iSpidibus. 

AG.    At  si  ad  prandifim  me  in  aedem  uos  dixissem  ducere, 

Vfnceretis   c^ruom   cursu   u^l   grallator^m   gradu.  530 

Ndnc  uos  quia  mihi  fiduocatos  dixi  et  testis  dCicere, 

P6dagrosi  estis  kc  uicistis  cocleam  tarditCidine. 

<ADV.>   An  uero  non  idsta  causast  qu6<r>  curratur  c6leriter, 

[ADV.]     Vbi  bibas,   edfis  de  alieno  quantum  uelis  usque  adfatim, 
Qu6d  tu  inuitus  nGmquam  reddas  domino,  de  qu<(o>io  Meris?     535 
S6d  tamen  cum  e6  cum  quiqui  quamquam  sumus  paup^rculi, 
fist  domi  quod  edimus:    ne  nos  tdm  contemptim  conteras. 
Quicquid  est  pauxlllulum  illuc  nostrum  t  id  omne  intus  est: 
N^ue  nos  quemquam  fldgitamus  n§que  nos  quisquam  fldgitat. 
Tud  causa  nemo   nostrorumst  suos  rupturus   ramites.  540 

AG.    Nlmis  iracundi  estis:  equidem  haec  uobis  dixi  per  iocum. 
ADV^.    P6r  iocum   itidem  dicta [m]    habeto,  qua^  nos  tibi   respon- 

dimus. 
AG.    6bsecro  hercle  operdm  celocem  banc  mihi,  ne  corbitdm  date. 
Attrepidate  sAltem:   nam  uos  adproperare  baud  postulo. 
ADV.    Slquid  tu  placide  6tioseque  Sgere  uis,  operam  damns:     545 
SI  properas,  cursores  meliust  te  dduocatos  dticere. 
AG.    Scltis,   rem  narrdui   uobis,  quod  uostra  opera,  mi  6pus  siet, 
D6  lenone  hoc  qui  me  amantem  Ifidificatur  tam  diu: 
El  paratae  ut  sint  insidiae  de  afiro  et  de  seruo  meo. 
ADV.    6mnia  istaec  scimus  iam  nos,  si  hi  epectatores  sciant.     550 
Horunc  hi[n]c  nunc  caflsa  haec  agitur  sp^ctatorum  fibula: 
H6s  te  satius  6st  docere  ut,  qudndo  agas,  quid  aga[n]s  sciant. 
N69  tu  ne  curfissis:  scimus  rem  omnem.  quippe  omn^s  simul 
Dldicimus  tecum  fma,  ut  respond^re  possimfis  tibi. 
AG.    fta     profectost.       ^d    agite    igitur,    flt    sciam    uos    scire, 

rem  555 

Expedite  et  mihi  quae  uobis  dtldum  dixi  dlcite. 
ADV.    ftane   temptas   dn   sciamus?   non   meminisse   nos    [tjratu's, 
Quo  modo  trec^ntos  Philippos   Collabisco  ullico 
DMeris,  quos  def^rret  hue  ad  lenonem  inimicuni  tuom, 
fsque    se    ut    adsimuldret    peregrinum     [esse]     aliunde    ex    alio 

oppido.       560 

"Vbi   is  detulerit,  tu  eo  quaesitum   s^ruom  aduent<ar>6s  tuom 
Q(im  pecunid.     AG.    Meministis  m^moriter:    seruSstis  me. 


50 


KETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


POENULIJS 


51 


ADV.    file  negabit:    Mllphionem   qua^ri  censeblt   tuom 
fd  duplicabit  6mne  furtum:   l6no  addicettir  tibi. 
Ad  earn  rem  nos  6sse  <t>estis  uls  tibi.     <AG.>    Ten^tis  rem.     565 
ADV.    VLx  quidem  hercle  |  —  Ita  pauxillast  —  digitulis  primoribus. 
AG.    (Hoe   cito    et    curslmst    agendum.     pr6pera    iam    quantflm 

potest. 

ADV.    B4ne  uale  igitur.     te  aduocatos   m6lius<t>  celeris  dficere: 
Tdrdi  sumus  nos.     AG.    6ptume  itis,  p^ssume  hercle  dicitis. 
Quln  etiam  declderint  nobis  f^mina  |   in  talCs  uelim.  570 

ADV.    At  edepol   nos   tibi    (    in   lumbos   llnguam    atque   oculos   In 

solum. 

AG.    H§ia,  hau  uostrumst  Iracundos  6sse  quod  dixl  ioco. 

ADV.    N^e  tuom  quid^mst  amicis  p6r  iocum  iniust^  loqui. 

AG.     Mtttite    isUec.       quid   uelim    uos,    scltis.      ADV.     Callemfis 

probe : 
L#nonem  ut  peritirum  perdas,  Id  studes.     AG.    Ten^tis  rem.)     575 

5Jf.O  if.  The  long  tedious  scene  between  Agorastocles 
and  the  advocati  was  apparently  shortened  for  later  pro- 
ductions. The  beginning  of  the  scene  (11.  504-542)  and 
11.  567-573  show  exactly  the  same  development  of  thought. 
In  both,  Agorastocles  rebukes  the  old  gentlemen  for  their 
slowness,  and  they  resent  the  reproof ;  then  he  apologizes, 
saying  that  his  words  were  meant  only  in  fun.  The  plan 
against  the  leno  which  is  reviewed  at  length  in  11.  547-566 
is  summarized  in  11.  574-575,  though,  as  Goetz  ^«  observed, 
the  second  version  would  be  incomprehensible  if  we  had 
not  the  first  as  well.  Moreover,  a  third  version  of  the 
beginning  of  the  scene  is  probably  preserved  in  11.  543- 
546.^^     Here  again  we  have  the  remonstrance  of  Agor- 

*•  Goetz  in  Acta  soc.  phil.  Lips.  6    (1876),  p.  269. 

"Goetz  {Acta  soc.  phil.  Lips.  6,  p.  254),  noting  the  inappropriate- 
ness  of  these  verses  in  their  present  position,  made  them  precede 
11.  541-542.  Leo  [Plant.  Forsch.,  p.  161,  note)  thought  them  a 
part  of  the  same  shortened  version  that  we  find  in  11.  567-575. 
Kellermann  {Comm.  phil.  Jen.  7,  p.  134)  agreed  with  (5oetz  that 
11.  543-546  and  567-575  could  not  belong  to  the  same  recension. 


astocles  and  the  reply  of  the  advocati  (cf.  11.  504-540; 
567-571).  The  parallelism  is  particularly  close  between 
507  (corhitae)  and  543  (corhitam) ;  between  521-523, 
546,  and  568;  between  541-542  and  572-573;  between 
565  (tenetis  rem)  and  575  (tenetis  rem).  There  seem 
therefore  to  have  been  three  versions  of  the  scene:  (1) 
the  Plautine  version,  11.  504-542;  547-566;  (2)  11.  567- 
575;  and  (3)  11.  543-546,  probably  followed  by  11.  547- 
566.21 

P  has  the  passage  in  the  order  of  the  Goetz-Schoell  text. 

A  deest  501-571  (=71  11.)  Two  sheets  of  A  are  missing 
(=76  11.).  If  we  allow  two  lines  for  the  scene-heading  of  III.,  1, 
and  assume  that  a  few  of  the  long  verses  were  run  over,  we  find 
that  the  whole  passage  could  very  well  have  been  contained  in  A. 
But  in  any  case,  the  fact  that  A  preserves  572  ff.  in  the  same 
form  as  P,  would  argue  that  it  had  the  rest  of  the  passage 
as   well. 


ADV.    Aet6li  ciues  t6  salutamfis,  Lyce: 
Quamquam  hSnc  salutem  f^rimus   inuitf  tibi. 
[Et  quamquam  bene  uolumus  leniter  lenonibus.] 
LY.    Fortdnati  omnes  sitis:  quod  cert6  scio 
Nee  f6re  nee  Fortunam  Id  situram  fieri. 
ADV.    Istic  6st  thensaurus  stflltis  in  linguS  situs, 
Vt  qua^stui   habeant  mdle  loqui  meli6ribus. 
<LY.>   ViSm  qui  nescit  qua  deueniat  fid  mare, 
Eum  op6rtet   amnem  qua^rere  comit^m   sibi. 
Ego  mfile  loquendi  u6bis  nesciul  uiam: 
Nunc  u6s  mihi  amnes  6stis:  uos  certtimst  sequi. 
Si  b^ne  dicetis,  u6stra  ripa  u6s  sequar: 
Si  mfile  dioetis,  u6stro  gradiar  Ifmite. 


621 
622t» 

625 


630 


"  Langrehr,  De  Plauti  Poenulo,  p.  19,  suspected  11.  523,  567,  728, 
733  (to  which  he  should  probably  have  added  1.  730)  because 
the  advocati,  for  whom  Plautus  regularly  uses  the  plural,  speak 
or  are  addressed  in  the  singular  in  these  lines.  Of  the  suspected 
verses,  1.  567  is  probably  not  by  Plautus;  the  rest  occur  in  passages 
which  are  otherwise  free  from  suspicion. 


52 


EETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


ADV.    MalO  bene  facere  tantumdemst  perlculum 

Quantlim  bono  male  facere.     LY.    Qui[d]    uero?    ADV.    Scies. 

Malo  slquid  bene  facifis,  id  beneficium  Interit:  635 

Bon6  siqiiid  male  facias,  aetatem  6xpetit. 

<LY.>    Fac^te  dictum.     s4d  quid  istuc  ad  me  Sttinet? 

<ADV.>    Quia  nos  honoris  tuf  causa   ad  te  u^nimus, 

Quamquam   bene   uolumus   Igniter   lenonibus. 

622''.  This  verse  is  the  same  as  1.  639,  except  that 
1.  622''  begins  et  quamquam,  and  1.  639  quamquam  alone. 
Lindsay  ^^  is  probably  right  in  thinking  that  the  repe- 
tition indicates  shortening.  The  actors  of  the  Revival 
could  easily  pass  from  1.  622  to  1.  639,  and  thence  to 
the  end  of  the  scene. 

A  deest  604-634. 


LY.    Sed  Mec  latrocinSntur  quae  ego  dixi  omnia.  704 

CO.    Quid    ita?     LY.    Quia   aurum   p6scunt    praesentfirium.        705 

CX).    Quin  hercle  accipere  tti  non  mauis  quam  €go  dare. 

<ADV.>    Quid,  si  6uocemus  hflc  foras  Agordstoclem, 

Vt  Ipsus  testis  sit  sibi  certlssumus? 

Heus  ta,  qui  furem  cSptas.  egredere  6cius, 

Vt  tlite  inspectes  aQrum  lenonf  dare.  710 


AGORASTOCLES. 
ADVLESCENS 


ADVOCATL 

LYCVS 
LENO 


COLLABISCVS. 
VILICVS 


AG.    Quid  ^st?  quid  uoltis,  testes?     ADV.    Specta   ad  d^xteram: 

Tuos  s^ruos  aurum   |   Ipsi  lenonf  dabit. 

CO.    Age  Recipe  hoc  sis:   helc  sunt  numerati  atirei 

Trec^nti  nummi  qui  uocantur  Phflipp<e>i. 

Hinc   m6   procura:    pr6pere   hosce   apsuml    uolo.  715 

LY.    Edep6l   fecisti   prodigum   promtim  tibi. 

Age   eamus    intro.     CO.    T6    sequor.     LY.    Age    age    ^mbula: 

Ibl  quae  relicua  ilia  fabuliibimur. 


POENULUS 


53 


CO.    Ead^m    narrabo    tfbi    res    Spartiaticas. 

LY.    Quin     s6quere     me     intro.     CO.    D(ic     me     intro:     addictdm 

tenea.  720 

AG.    Quid  ntinc  mihi  auctores  6stis?     ADV.    Vt  frugf  sies. 
AG.    Quid,  si  Animus  esse  non  sinit?     ADV.    Esto  tit  sinit. 
AG.    Vidfstis,    leno   quom   atirum   a<jcepit?     ADV.    Vidimus. 
AG.    Eum   uos  meum   esse  s^ruom   scitis?     ADV.    Scf<ui>mus. 
AG.    Rem   aduorsus   populi   t  saepe   leges?    ADV.    Sciuimus.     725 
AG.    Em  ista^c  uolo  ergo  uos    commeminisse  omnia. 
Mox  quom  Sd  praetorem  |  tisus  ueniet.    ADV.   M6minimus. 
AG.    Quid,  sf  recenti  re  a^dis  pultem?    ADV.    C^nseo. 
AG.    Si  pflltem,  non  recMdet?    ADV.    Panem  frangito. 
AG.    Si  exferit  leno,  c6nsen[t]   hominem  int^rrogem,  730 

Meus  s^ruos   [si]   ad  eum  u^neritne?    ADV.    Qufppini? 

706  ff.  The  repetitions  in  the  manuscripts  at  the  close 
of  III.,  3  seem  to  indicate  a  shortening  of  the  prolix 
scene  that  follows.  After  Collabiscus  had  agreed  to  pay 
Lycus  the  sum  demanded  for  an  evening's  entertainment, 
there  was  no  reason  for  delay ;  the  money  could  be  handed 
over  at  once,  and  then  Agorastocles  could  appear  and 
demand  his  slave,  in  accordance  with  the  prearranged 
plan.  It  was  apparently  with  the  intention  of  cutting 
out  the  intervening  dialogue  that  some  manager  adscribed 
11.  720,  730  at  the  close  of  III.,  3.  But  if,  as  Leo  ^* 
and  Lindsay  ^^  think,  1.  720  followed  directly  upon  1.  706, 
and  1.  730  in  turn  upon  1.  720,  Agorastocles  must  have 
appeared  upon  the  stage  without  any  summons  or  any 
notice  of  his  coming.  Some  announcement  seems  neces- 
sary, and  the  fact  that  1.  720  appears  in  A  one  line 
later  than  in  P  perhaps  indicates  that  it  was  intended 
to  be  spoken  after  the  summons  of  x\gorastocles.  (IL 
707-710). 


Id 


Lindsay,  Ed.    (1905),  ad  loc. 


"  Leo,   Plant.   Forsch.,   pp.   7   f . 
Lindsay,  Anc.  Edd.,  pp.  43  f. 


p 


IS 


54 


EETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


POENULUS 


55 


P  has  the  order:  706,  720  (in  the  unmetrical  form  Quin  sequere 
me  introf  Due  me  ergo  intro.  Addictum  tenes.) ,  707  ff.,  repeating 
720  in  metrical  form  in  the  proper  place. 

A  has  the  order:  706,  707,  720  (in  the  same  form  as  P,  except 
that  it  omits  addictum  tenes),  730,  (with  the  readmg  gmd 
tumf  hominem  interrogemf) ,  708.  Then  the  sheet  which  must  have 
contained  709-745  is  missing  in  A.  The  38  lines  on  the  sheet  would 
not  give  room  for  these  37  verses  and  a  two-line  scene-heading; 
but  it  is  possible  that  the  scene-heading  for  III.,  4  took  up  only 
one  line  in  A,-  as  the  heading  for  III.,  5  actually  does.  At  any 
rate  A,  in  inserting  730  before  708,  shows  more  evidence  of  change 
than  P. 

CO.    Absc6dam  hinc  intro.     AG.  Factum  a  nobis  cdmiter.  805 

Bonam  dedistis,  aduocati,  operSm  mihi. 

Cras  mane,  quaeso,  in  c6mitio  estote  6buiam. 

Tu  s6quere  me  intro.    1163  ualete.     ADV.    Et  tti  uale. 

805-808,  The  command  of  Agorastocles  to  CoUabiscus 
in  1.  808  {tu  sequere  me  intro)  is  impossible  after  Col- 
labiscus  bas  announced  in  1.  805  ahscedam  hinc  intro, 
Langen^'^  is  probably  right  in  thinking  that  a  later 
version  substituted  1.  805  for  11.  806-808,  in  order  to 
shorten  the  scene.  He  observes  that  the  vocative  advocati 
comes  in  much  more  naturally  if  1.  805  is  omitted,  and 
that  the  salutation  valete  .  .  .  vale  (1.  808)  forms  a 
suitable  close  for  the  dialogue. 

A  deest  783-849. 


MI.    Illic    hinc    abiit.     dei    Immortales    m€um    erum    seruatGm 

uolunt        917 

fit  hunc  disperdittim  lenonem:   tSntum  eum  instat  6xiti. 
Satine,  prius  quam  untimst  iniectum  t6lum,  iam  instat  dlterum? 
fbo  intro-    haec   ut  m6o   ero  memorem:    nam  htic   si   ante   aedes 

guocem,      920 


^•This   is   evidently   the   assumption   of   Seyffert. 
Woch.  16    (1896),  col.  253,  note  3. 
Langen,  Plaut.  Stud.,  p.  342. 


Cf.   Berl.   Phil. 


Quae  afidiuistis  modo,  nunc  si  eadem  hic  iterum  iterem,  inscitiast. 
firo  uni  potius  fntus  ero  odio  quam  hfc  sim  nobis  6mnibus. 
Dei  Immortales,  qudnta  turba,  quanta  aduenit  calamitas 
H6die  ad  hunc   len6nem.     sed  ego  nunc  est  quom  me  commoror. 
fta  negotium  fnstitutumst :    non   datur  cessatio:  925 

Nam  et  hoc  docte  consulendum,  quod   modo  concr4ditumst, 
fit   illud  autem   ins6ruiendumst    c6nsilium   uernaculum. 
R6mor<a>  si  sit,  qui  malam  rem  mlhi  det,  merito  f^cerit. 
Isunc  intro  ibo:   dum  erus  adueniat  a  foro,  opperiar  domi. 

917-929.  The  close  of  the  scene  undoubtedly  shows 
two  parallel  versions.  There  is  very  close  correspondence 
between  917-918  and  923-924  (note  especially  the  repe- 
tition of  dei  immortales) ;  between  920  iho  intro  and  929 
nunc  intro  iho.  But  1.  920  implies  that  Agorastocles 
is  in  the  house,  while  1.  929  states  that  he  is  to  return 
a  foro.  We  must  therefore  recognize  two  versions:  (1) 
11.  917-922;  and  (2)  11.  923-929.  Evidence  for  the 
genuineness  of  the  former  version  is  found  in  the  jingle 
ero  .  .  .ero  in  the  last  line ;  ^^  and  this  version  agrees 
with  1.  808  (which,  as  we  have  just  seen,  is  probably 
genuine)  in  representing  Agorastocles  as  inside  the  house. 

Both  A  and  P  give  the  entire  passage. 


Ythalonim  ualon  nth  sicorathisyma  comsyth 

Chym   lachunythmumys   thral   mycthi   baruimy   sehi 

Liphocanethythby  nuthi  ad  edynbynui 

Bymarob   syllohomaloni   murbymy   syrthoho 

Byth  lym  mothyn  noctothu  ulechanti  clamas  chon 

Yssid  dobrim  thyfel  yth  chil  ys  chon  chem  liful 

Yth  binim  ysdybur  thinnochot  nu  agorastocles 

Ythemaneth   ihychir  saelichot   sith   naso 

Bynny   idchil   liichilygubulim  lasibit  thim 

Bodialytherayn  nynnurs  lymmon  choth  lusim 


930 


935 


« 


"Lindsay,  Anc.  Edd.,  p.  55. 


56 


EETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


945 


Ythalonimualoniuthsicorathiisthymhimihymaooinsyth 

Combaepumamitalmetlotiambeat 

lulecantheconaalonimbaluinbar   ff  dechor 

Bats*  *  *  *hunesobinesubicsillimbalim 

Esseantidamossonalemuedubertefet 

Donobun*huneccilthumucommucroluful 

Altaniinauosduberithemhuarcharistolem 

Sittesedanecnasotersahelicot 

Alemusdubertimurmucopsuistiti 

Aoccaaneclictorbodesiussilimlimmimcolus. 


930-9Jf9.  A  has  only  one  version  of  the  Carthaginian 
passage;  P  gives  two.  Lindsay  ^^  regards  11.  930-939 
as  retradatio;  but  it  is  hard  to  imagine  any  stage-mana- 
ger, no  matter  how  industrious,  remodeling  a  speech  in 
a  foreign  tongue,  or  calling  in  a  professor  of  Semitics 
to  correct  the  grammar.  It  is  much  more  likely,  there- 
fore, that  the  second  version  is  the  work  of  a  later 
grammarian. 

A  omits  930-939. 


1045 


HA.  O  mi  popularis,  saliie.     AG.  Et  tu  edepol,  quisquis  es:      1039 

Et  sfquid  opus  est,  qua^so,  die  atque  Impera  1040 

Popuiaritatis  caCsa.     HA.  Habeo  grStiam: 

Verum  6go  hie  hospitium   |   hdbeo:   Antidamiie  fllium 

Quaero  —  commostra,  si  nouisti  —  Agor^stoclem. 

(Sed  eoquem  aduleseentem  tu  hie  nouisti  Agordstoclem  ? 

AG.  Siquidem    Antidama[t]i   qua^ris    adoptatleium, 

Ego  sum  Ipsus,  quem  tu  qua^ris.     HA.  Hem,  quid  ego  aQdio? 

AG.    Antldamae  gnatum  me  ^se.    HA.  Si  itast,  t6sseram 

Conf^rre  si  uis  h6spitalem,  eccam  attuli. 

AG.  Agedum,  htic  ostende.     est  pfir  probe,  <q>uam  habe6  dorai.) 

HA.  0  mi  h6spe9,  mlue  mtiltum.     nam  mihi  tGos  pater  1050 

Patrltus  ergo  |  h6spes  AntidamS.s  fuit. 

Haec  mlhi   hospitalis   tessera  cum   ill6   fuit. 

<AG.>   Ergo    hie   apud   me   hospitium   tibi    praeb^bitur. 


u 


Lindsay,  Anc.  Edd.,  p.   44. 


POENULUa 


57 


101,2  ff.     This  passage  has  long  been  considered  one 
of  the  most  certain  examples  of  retradatio  in  Plautus, 
but  scholars  are  by  no  means  agreed  as  to  the  extent 
of  the  dittography.    There  are  two  inquiries  about  Agor- 
astocles   (1042-1043;  1044),  each  introduced  by  an  ad- 
versative particle  {verum,  sed),  and  two  presentations  of 
the  hospitalis  tessera   (1047-1049;   1052).     The  saluta- 
tion in  11.   1050-1051  is  concerned  with  the  identity  ol 
Agorastocles  as  adopted  son  of  Antidama,  Hanno's  ances- 
tral  guest-friend    (cf.    11.    1042-1043),    and   the   tessera 
(1.    1052)    is    brought    in    almost    as    an    afterthought. 
Seyifert's^^   solution  of   the   difficulty  is   on  the   whole 
the  most   satisfactory.     He  finds  two  parallel  versions: 

(1)  11.  1042-1043,  followed  by  a  reply  of  Agorastocles, 
similar  to  that  in  1.  1046,  and  then  by  11.   1050-1053 ; 

(2)  11.  1044-1049,  followed  by  1.  1053.  Each  vqrsion 
begins  with  an  inquiry  about  Agorastocles  and  a  dis- 
closure of  the  young  man's  identity;  but  in  the  first 
the  recognition  rests  upon  a  simple  statement,  m  the 
second  there  is  a  careful  examination  of  the  tessera. 
If  Seyffert  ^'  and  Langrehr  ^^  are  right  in  thinking  Anti- 
damas  (1.  1051)  an  un-Plautine  form,^  the  second  ver- 
sion is  the  genuine. 

P  has  the  verses  in  the  order  of  the  Goetz-Sehoell  text. 
A  has  1041,  1044-1048,  1042-1043,  1053,  1049-1053   (i.  e.,  A  trans- 
poses  the  couplet  1042-1043,  and  repeats  1053). 


90 


Seyffert,  Stud.  Plant.,  pp.  H  f. 
"SeyflFert,  Stud.  Plaut.,  p.  12. 
« Langrehr,  De  Plauti  Poen.,  p.  21. 
» The  same  form  oecurs  in  1.  955.     The  final  -s  is  m  both  cases 

necessitated  by  the  meter. 


58 


RETEACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


1155 


1160 


1166 


HA.  Tu  abdlic  hosc<e>  intro  et  Una  nutric^m  simul  1147 

lube  banc  abire  bine  ad  te.     AG.  Fac  quod  Imperat. 
MI.    Sed  quis  illas  tibi  monstrabit?     AG.    Ego  doctlssume. 
MI.  Abeo  Igitur.     AG.  Facias  m6do  quam  memores  mauelim.    1150 
Patruo  fiduenienti  c4na  curettir  uolo. 
MI.  Lachanam  uos,  quos  ^go  iam  detrudam  fid  molas, 
Inde  p6rro  ad  puteum  atque  fid  robustum  c6dicem. 
Ego  ffixo  hospitium  hoc  Igniter  lauddbitis. 
AG.  Audin  tu,  patrue?  dleo,  ne  dicttim  neges. 
Tuam  mlhi  maiorem  flliam  desp6ndea-s. 

HA.    Pactum  rem  habeto.     AG.    Sp6ndesne  igitur  ?     HA.    Spondeo. 
<AG.>  Mi  patrue,  salue:  nfim  nunc  es  plan6  meus. 
Nunc  d#mum  ego  cum  ilia  fabulabor  llbere. 
Nunc,  -patrue,  si  uis  tufis  uidere  fllias. 
Me  s^uere.     HA.    Iam  dudum  ^quidem  cupio  et  U  sequor. 
(Quid,  si  edmus  illis  6buiam?     AG.  At  ne  int^r  uias 
Praet^rbitamus  m^tuo.     HA.  Magne   Itippiter, 
Restltue  certas  mlhi  ex  incertis  ntinc  opes. 
AG.  tEgo  quidem  meos  amores  m^cum  confid6  fore.) 
Sed  eccas  uideo  ipsas.     HA.    Ha^cine  meae  sunt  flliae? 
Quantae  6  quantillis  iam  sunt  factae.     MI.        Scin,  quid  est? 
Thraeca^   sunt  *  *  *  ♦  onem  sustolll  solent. 
(OpIno[r]   hercle  hodie  qu6d  ego  dixi  p6r  iocum, 
Id  6uenturum  esse  #t  seuerum  et  s^rium,  1170 

Vt  haec  Inueniantur  h6die  esse  huius  flliae. 
<AG.>  Pol  istfic  quidem  iam  c6rtumst.  tu  istos,  Mllphio, 
Abdtice  intro:   nos  hasce  hie  praestolabimur. ) 

1162  ff.  There  are  traces  of  alteration  at  the  close 
of  this  scene.  In  11.  1160-1161  Agorastocles  bids  Hanno 
follow  him  if  he  wishes  to  see  his  daughters.  In  11. 
1162-1163  Hanno  proposes,  as  if  the  plan  were  quite  new, 
that  they  go  to  meet  the  girls,  and  Agorastocles  objects 
that  they  may  miss  them  on  the  way.  At  1.  1166  the 
two  girls  are  seen  approaching,  and  at  1.  1173  Agoras- 
tocles and  Hanno  announce  that  they  will  wait  for  them. 
Milphio  has  been  commanded  to  enter  the  house  at  11. 
1147-1148,  and  has  apparently  done  so  (cf.  1.  1150  abeoj 
1.   1154)  ;  to  our  surprise  we  find  him  on  the  stage  at 


P0ENULU3 


59 


11.  1167  ff.,  making  a  belated  comment  on  the  identity 
of  the  two  girls,  and  receiving  the  same  directions  that 
had  been  given  to  him  before.  There  are  certainly  two 
versions  of  the  command  to  Milphio  and  of  the  proposal 
to  look  for  the  girls;  and  it  is  possible  that  the  whole 
passage  (1162-1173)  represents  an  alternative  ending  for 
the  scene,  intended  to  follow  1.  1146. 

A  and  P  give  the  scene  in  the  same  form. 


<AG.>   Quaeso,  qui  lubet  tarn  did  tenere  collum?     1266 
Omltte  saltem  tu  altera:  nolo  6go  istue  — <AD.>   Enicas  me. 
<AG.>  Prius  quam  te  mihi  desponderit.     AD.   [0]  Mitt6?  sperate, 

salue. 

<HA.>  Ck>ndamus  alter  alterum  ergo  in  n§ruom  bracchialem. 

1261-1268.  There  is  much  confusion  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  play  about  the  betrothal  of  Agorastocles  and  Adel- 
phasium.  It  takes  place  in  full  form  at  11.  1155-1157 
(cf.  Aul.  255-256;  Trm.  571-573),  and  the  promise  made 
at  that  time  is  recalled  to  Hanno's  mind  at  11.  1278-1279. 
But  at  1.  1268  and  again  at  1.  1357  Agorastocles  speaks 
as  if  the  betrothal  were  still  to  take  place.  This  last 
line,  as  we  shall  see,  probably  belongs  to  the  latest  version 
of  the  play,  and  it  is  possible  that  11.  1267-1268,  which 
are  awkwardly  introduced  at  best,  also  represent  a  later 
addition.  If  the  close  of  V.,  3  was  changed  by  the 
substitution  of  11.  1162-1173  for  1147-1161  (cf.  above), 
the  betrothal  was  omitted  in  the  later  performance  of 
the  play,  and  the  changes  in  the  other  scenes  may  have 
been  made  to  agree  with  this. 

A  has  the  passage  in  the  order  of  the  Goetz-Schoell  text. 
P  has  the  order   1266,   1268,   1267. 


POENULUS 


61 


60 


RETEACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


1315 


1320 


1325 


AG.    Num  tlbi,  adulescens,  mfilae  aut  denies  prtiriunt, 

Qui  huic  ^  molestus,   fin  malam  rem  qua^ritas? 

ANTA.    t  Qur  non  adhibuisti,  dtim  istaec  loquere,  tympanum? 

Nam  t^  cinaedum  ease  drbitror  magis  qu^m  uirum. 

AG.    Scin  qufim  cinaedus  sum?  Ite  istinc,  serul,  foras, 

Ecf^rte  fustis.     ANTA.    Heus  tu,  siquid  p6r  iocum 

Dixl,   nolito   in   s6rium  conuortere. 

ANTE.    Qui[d]    tlbi   lubidos<t>,  opsecro,  Antamo^nides, 

Loqui  Inclementer  nostro  cognato  6t  patri? 

Nam  hie  n6ster  pater  est:   hfc  nos  cognoult  modo 

Et  htinc  sui  fratris  fllium.     ANTA.    Ita  me  Ilippiter 

Bene  am6t,  bene  factum,     gafideo  et  uolup  6st  mihi, 

Siquid  lenoni   |   optigit  magnl  mall, 

Quomque  ^  uirtute  nobis   fortuna  6ptigit. 

ANTE.    Credlbile  ecastor  dieit:   crede  huic,  ml  pater. 

HA.    Credo.     AG.    6t  ego  credo.     sM  eccum  lenonem  6ptume: 

(Credo.    AG.  At  ego  credo   |.    6depol  hie  uenit  c6mmodus.)      1331 

Bonum  uirum  eccum  uideo:   se  recipit  domum. 

HA.    (Quis  hie  4st?     AG.    Vtrumuis  #st,  <u>el  leno  <u6l>  \ijkos. 

In  s^ruitute  hie  fllias  habult  tuas,  1334 

Et  mi   [hie]  atiri  fur  est.     HA.    B^Uum  hominem,  quem  n6ueris.) 

AG.    Rapiamus  in  ius.       HA.    Mlnume.      AG.    Quapropt^r?     HA. 

Quia 
Inifiriarum  mtilto  induci  sfitius  est. 


LYCVS. 

AGORASTOCLES. 

HANNO. 

LENO 

ADVLESCENS 

ANTAMOENIDES 
MILES 

POENVS 

LY.    Decipitur  nemo  m^a  quidem  sent^ntia, 

Qui  suls  amicis  nfirrat  recte  r^s  suas: 

Nam  omnibus  amicis  mels  idem  unum  c6nuemt,  1340 

Vt  m§  suspendam,  ne  fiddicar  AgorSstocli. 

AG.    Leno,  efimus  in  ius.     LY.    6psecro  te,  Agorfistocles, 

Susp^ndere   ut   me  llceat.     HA.    In   ius  t6  uoco. 

LY.    Quid  tlbi  mecum  autem?     HA.    Quia  [  hasce  aio  llberas 

Ing^nuasque  esse  fllias  ambSs  meas.  1345 

Eae  sflnt  surruptae  cdm  nutrice  pfiruolae. 

LY.    lam  prldem  equidem  istuc  scfui  et  miratfls  fui 

Nemlnem  venire  qui  Istas  adserer^t  manu. 


Meaequid^m   profecto   n6n   sunt.     ANTA.  Leno,   in   itis  eas. 
LY.    De  prSndio  tu  dicis:  debettir,  dabo.  1350 

AG.    Duplum   pro  furto  mi  6pus  est.     LY.    Sume  hinc  quldlubet. 
HA.    Et  mlhi  suppliciis  multis.     LY.    Sfime  hinc  quldlubet. 
(ANTA.    Et  mlhi  quidem  min[im]a[m]  arg^nti.    LY.    Sume  hike 

quldlubet. 

Coll6   rem  soluam  iam  6mnibua  quasi   bfiiolus. 

AG.      Numquld  recusas  contra  me?     LY.    Hand  uerbtim  quidem. 

AG.    Ite  Igitur  intro,  mQlieFes.     sed,  pfitrue  mi,  1356 

Tuam,  (it  dixisti,  mlhi  desponde  flliam. 

HA.    Haud   aliter   ausim.     ANTA.    B6ne   uale.     AG.    Et   tu   b^ne 

uale. ) 
ANTA.   Leno,  firrabonem  hoc  pro  mina  mecfim  fero. 
LY.    Perii    h^rcle.    AG.    Immo     haud    mult6     post,     si 

u^neris. 

LY.    Quin  4gomet  tibi  me  addloo:    quid  praetore  opust? 

Verum  6bsecro  te  ut  llceat  simplum  s6luere, 

Trec^ntos   Philippos:    crMo,   conradl   potest. 

Cras  atictionem   f^ciam.     AG.    Tantisper  quidem 

Vt  sis  apud  me  llgnea  in  cust6dia. 

LY.    Fiat.    AG.    Sequere  intro,  pStrue  mi,  ut  hunc  festum  diem 

Habefimus  hilare[m]   huiUs  malo  et  nostr6  bono. 

MultGm  ualete.     mtilta  uerba  f^cimus: 

Maldm  postremo  omne  Sd  lenonem  r^cidit. 

Nunc,   qu6d   postremumst   condiment um   f fibulae. 

Si  plficuit,  plausum  p6stulat  como6dia.  1371 


m     IUS 
1360 


1365 


HANNO. 
POENVS 


AGORASTOCLES.  LYCVS. 

ADVLESCENS  LENO 

ANTAMOENIDES 
MILES 

ANTERASTYLIS.  ADELPHASIVM. 

MERETRICES  II 


AG.    Quam  r^m  agis,  miles?  qui  lubet  patruo  meo 

Loqui   Inclementer?  n^  mirere   mCilieres 

Quod  efim  sequntur:    modo   cognouit  fllias 

Suas  ^sse  hasce  ambas.     LY.    H6m,  quod  uerbum  aurls  meas 

Tetiglt?  nunc  perii.     ANTA.    Vnde  haec  periertint  domo? 

AG.    Carthfiginienses  stint.     LY.    At  ego  sum  p^rditus. 


1375 


i. 


62 


EETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


POENULUS 


63 


1390 


1395 


IlMc  ego  metuei  semper,  ne  cogn6sceret 

Eas  aiiquis:  quod  nunc  factumst.    uae  miser6  mihi. 

Peri#re,  opinor,  du6deuigintl  minae  1380 

Qui  hasce  6mi.     AG.    Et  tute  Ipse  peri<i>stl,  Lyce. 

HA.    Quis  hie  6st?     AG.    Vtrumuis  6st.    [noluel  leno  u6l    XiJ/cos. 

In  s^ruitute    hie  fllias  habuit  tuas 

Et  mi  atiri  fur  est.     HA.    B^llum  hominem,  quern  n6ueris. 

AG.    Len6,  rapacem  te  6sse  semper  cr6didi:  1385 

Verum  €tiam  furacem  <aiunt>  qui  nortint  magis. 

LY.    Acc^dam.     per  ego  t  te  tua  te  genua  Obsecro 

Et  hiinc,  cognatum  qu6m  tuom  esse  int^llego: 

Quando  boni  estis,  tit  bonos  faeere  addecet, 

Facite  tit  <uos>  uostro  sCbueniatis  stipplici. 

lam  pridem  equidem  istas  sclui  |  esse  llberas 

Et  ^xpeetabam,  slqui  eas  asserer^t  manu[m]  : 

t  Nam  meae  prosum  n6n  sunt,     tum  autem  aurtim  tuom 

Reddam  quod  apud  mest  €t  ius  iurandum  dabo 

Me  malitiose  nil  fecisse,  Agordstocles. 

AG.    Quid  mihi  par  faeere  sit,  t  cum  egomet  c6nsulam. 

Omltte   genua.     LY.    MItto,   si   ita   sent6ntiast. 

ANTA.    Hetis  tu,  leno.     LY.   Quid  lenonem  uls  inter  negCtium? 

ANTA.    Vt    <m>inam    mihi    arg^nti[m]    reddas,    prius    quam    in 

neruom  abdticere. 
LY.  DI  meliora  fdxint.     ANTA.  Sic  est:  h6die  cenabis  foris:     1400 
Atirum,  argentum,  e6llum,   leno,    [s]trl3  re<s>  nunc  deb^s   semul. 
HA.    Quid  me<d>  hae  re  fdcere  deeeat,  Egomet  mecum  c6gito. 
SI  nolo  hunc  ulclsei,  litis  s6quar  in  alieno  6ppido, 
Quantum  audiui  ing^nium  et  mores  6ius  quo[d]    paet6  sient. 
AD.    MI    pater,    nequld    tibi    cum    istoc    rel    t  siet    ac    massum 

6b3ecro.         1405 
ANTE.    Atisculta  sor6ri.     abi,  diiunge  Inimicitias  cum  Inprobo. 
HA.   H6c   age   sis,   len6:    quamquam   ego   te   m6ruisse   ut   pere^s 

scio, 
N6n    experiar    t^cum.     AG.    Neque    ego,    ei    atirum    mihi    reddfis 

meum. 
Leno,  quando  ex  n6ruo  emissu's,  c6npingare  in  cSrcerem. 
LY.    iam<ne>   autem,    ut   sol4s?    <ANTA.>    Ego,    Poene,   tIbi   me 

purgattim  uolo.     1410 
Slquid  dixi  irfitus  aduorsum  animi  tui  sent^ntiam: 
fd  uti  ignoseas,  qua^so,  et  quom  istas  Inuenisti  fllias, 
fta  me  di  ament,  <tit>  mihi  uolup[tatis]    est.     HA.       fgnosco  et 

cred6  tibi. 


ANTA.    tLeno,  tu  autem  amicam  mihi  des  facito  aut  auri  mihi 

reddas   minam. 
LY.    Vin  tibieinam  meam  habere?     ANTA.    Nil  moror  tiblcinam: 
N6scias  utrum  el  maiores  bticcaene  a<n>  mammal  sient.  1416 

LY.  Dabo  quae  placeat.    ANTA.  Ctira.    LY.  Aurum  cras[3]  a<d>  te 

referam  tuom. 

AG.  Fac<i>to  in  memoria  habeas.    LY.    Miles,  s6quere  me.  ANTA. 

Ego  uero   sequor. 
AG.    Quid   ais,    patrue?     quando   hinc    ire    c6gitas    Carthaginem? 

Nam    tecum    mihi    una    Ire    certumst.     HA.    Vbi    primum    potero, 

Ilico.  1420 

AG.    Dum  atietionem  facio,  hie  opus  est  aliquot  ut  manias  dies. 

HA.    Faciam    ita    ut    uis.     AG.    Age    sis,    eamus:     nos    curemus. 

platidite. ) 

Double  Ending  (1315-H22),  The  manuscripts  of 
Plautus  give  two  versions  of  the  close  of  the  Poenulus, 
each  ending  with  a  request  for  applause  (11.  1315-1371 ; 
1372-1422).  Early  editors  tried  to  fix  upon  one  of  these 
endings  as  genuine,  and  to  discard  the  other ;  ^^  but  the 
prevalent  view  to-day  is  that  both  contain  a  mixture  of 
the  genuine  text  and  the  text  of  the  Plautine  Kevival, 
with  some  still  later  additions  and  interpolations.  The 
older  of  the  two  versions  is  represented  by  11.  1322-1355 ; 
1398-1422 ;  but  even  this  is  probably  not  preserved  in 
the  form  in  which  Plautus  wrote  it.  Substitutions  were 
made  for  both  parts  of  this  ending,  though  not  necessarily 
by  the  same  author  or  at  the  same  date.  The  first  half 
was  displaced  by  the  confused  dialogue  of  11.  1372-1397, 
and  the  last  by  11.  1356-1371,  the  only  final  scene  in 
Plautus  which  is  written  in  iambic  senarii,  and  the  only 
one  in  which  the  abstract  comoedia  asks  for  applause.^^ 

Both  A  and  P  give  both  endings.    A  makes  no  division  between 
the  two;   P  leaves  a  space  as  if  for  a  new  scene  before  1.   1372. 


'^See  Goetz-Loewe,  Ed.   (1884),  on  V.,  7. 

^'On   the  whole  question,   see  Langen,  Plant.  Stud.,  pp.   343  ff.; 
Leo,  Plant.  Forsch.,  p.  158,  note  3. 


64 


EETEACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


POENULUS 


65 


Except  for  some  slight  differences  which  will  be  discussed  below, 
the  form  of  the  two  endings  is  the  same  in  both  families  of 
manuscripts. 

1315  ff.     The  general  discussion  of  the  Double  Ending- 
has  left  untouched  11.  1315-1321.     The  starting-point  of 
both  endings  is  the  insolent  speech  of  Antamoenides  to 
Hanno  (11.  1309-1314).     As  a  matter  of  fact,  this  speech 
is  rebuked  three  times:  (1)  by  Agorastocles  (11.  1315  fF.)  ; 
(2)  by  Adelphasium  (11.  1322  ff.)  ;  (3)  by  Agorastocles 
(11.   1372  if.).     The  second  reproof  follows  the  apology 
of  the  miles  (11.  1320-1321),  and  is  clearly  out  of  place; 
the  third,  as  we  have  already  seen,  belongs  to  the  later 
version  of  the   ending.     Moreover,   there   are  three   an- 
nouncements of  the  approach  of  the  leno  in  three  successive 
lines   (1330-1332).     The  second  of  these  so  closely  res- 
embles the  first  that  it  must  be  regarded  as  an  alternative 
version,  and  the  repetition  of  eccum  in  the  third  throws 
suspicion  on  that  line  also.     The  passage  which  follows 
L  1331  in  P  (11.  1333-1335)  is  identical  with  11.  1382- 
1384.     It  seems  more  appropriate  in  the  first  position, 
for  we   should  expect  Hanno  to  inquire   about  the   ap- 
proaching stranger  f^  in  the  second,  since  Lycus  is  already 
taking  part  in  the  dialogue,  there  is  much  less  reason  for 
the  question.     It  is  probable  that  in  the  first  two  versions 
Antamoenides  was  rebuked  for  his  rudeness,  apologized, 
and  received  forgiveness;  then  as  the  leno  was  seen  ap- 
proaching, Hanno  inquired  about  him.     In  the  third  ver- 
sion, Lycus  entered  abruptly  after  1.  1314,  just  in  time 
to  hear  the  reproof  of  Antamoenides  and  to  learn  that 
Hanno   was   the   father   of   his   two   slaves.     The   three 
versions    therefore   ran    as   follows:    (1)    11.    1315-1321, 

^'Langen,  Plant.  Stud.,  p.   351. 


followed  by  11.  1329-1330,  1333-1335;  (2)  the  genuine 
version,  11.  1322-1328,  1329-1330,1333-1335;  (3)  11.  1372- 
1381. 

P  omits  1331  (which  is  certainly  due  to  retractatio) ,  but  aside 
from  that  omission  gives  1315-1337,  1372-1384  in  full  form  (1333- 
1335  =  1382-1384).  A  omits  1333-1335,  but  writes  quis  hicst  at  the 
close  of  1332,  showing  that  the  lines  must  have  appeared  in  full  form 
somewhere  in  the  A-family.  If  we  assume  that  1322-1328  and 
1372-1381  were  alternative  versions,  the  repetition  of  1333-1335  after 
1381  is  not  surprising. 

1378  if.  The  repetition  of  1.  1377  after  1.  1381  in 
P  may  perhaps  indicate  a  shortening  of  the  scene  by 
the  omission  of  11.  1378-1381.^'^ 

P  repeats    1377   after   1381. 

A  deest  after  1381,  but  apparently  did  not  repeat  1377,  for  the 
38  lines  of  the  missing  sheet  would  have  given  just  enough  space 
for    1382-1419. 

The  Poenulus  shows  more  extensive  alteration  than  any 
other  play  of  Plautus.  It  contains  the  longest  single 
case  of  dittography — the  Double  Ending — and  both  this 
ending  and  the  body  of  the  play  have  received  an  unusual 
amount  of  revision.  In  two  places  (11.  504  ff. ;  1315  ff.) 
there  are  clear  traces  of  three  parallel  versions.  Scat- 
tered through  the  play,  too,  in  passages  which  would 
otherwise  arouse  no  comment,  are  a  number  of  suspicious 
forms  (the  singular  verbs  in  11.  523,  728,  730,  733 ;  the 
nominative  in  -s  in  1.  955).  Then  there  are,  of  course, 
examples  of  the  more  common  kinds  of  retradatio:  var- 
iant lines  (214,  218,  304,  390'')  and  longer  alternative 
versions  (11.  121-128;  917-929;  1042-1052),  and  possible 

^'Leo,  Ed.    (1896),  ad  loc.     Lindsay.  Ay\c.  Edd.,  p.  45,  note  c. 


66 


EETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


attempts    to    shorten    scenes    (11.    622",    706    ff.,    805, 

1377  ff.)-^' 

For  a  number  of  these  passages,  the  evidence  of  the 

Ambrosian  Palimpsest  is  lacking.  In  the  long  Double 
Ending,  the  text  of  A  and  P  is  practically  the  same, 
and  it  is  the  same  also  in  11.  917-929,  1147-1173.  A  and 
P  give  the  same  text,  though  their  order  differs,  in  11. 
300-305,  1267-1269;  and  in  two  places,  though  A  does 
not  preserve  the  whole  of  the  passage,  it  gives  enough 
to  show  that  the  passage  was  present  in  some  form  in  its 
archetype  (11.  389  ff . ;  1333  if.).  In  two  instances 
where  retractatio  undoubtedly  exists,  A  shows  slightly 
more  evidence  of  it  than  P  (11.  706  ff.,  1042  ff.)  ;  and  the 
alternative  line  1331  is  preserved  only  in  A.  The  one 
change  which  A  apparently  fails  to  indicate  is  the  short- 
ening at  11.  1378  fF.  On  the  whole,  then,  A  shows  slightly 
more  evidence  of  retractatio  than  P. 


^The  following  lines  have  also  been  suspected:  5-10,  14,  27,  37-40, 
46-58,  79-82,  159-163,  176,  225-232,  242,  244  ff.,  263-274,  275-282, 
289-296,  313-316,  327-328,  330-408,  352-354,  360-364,  370-380,  385, 
408,  419,  456^S  518,  521,  550,  551,  576,  631-632,  669-678,  717- 
718,  721-745,  831,  865,  877-878,  950-960,  967-970,  982-984,  988- 
989,  990-991,  1020,  1036,  1075,  1079-1085,  1108,  1116,  1125-1126, 
1159,  1192-1204,  1212-1236,  1277-1279,  1328-1330,  1336-1337,  1349, 
1350,   1353-1358,   1393  f.,   1401,   1403-1404,   1408,   1417. 

The  evidence  of  A  is  lacking  for  5-10,  14,  27,  37-40,  46-58,  79-82, 
159-163,  176,  225-232,  242,  244  ff.,  263-274,  275-282,  518,  521,  550, 
551,  631-632,  717-718,  721-745,  831,  1075,  1079-1085,  1393,  1401, 
1403-1404,  1408,  1417.  Both  A  and  P  have  289-296,  313-316, 
327-328,  330-408,  352-354,  360-364,  370-380,  (P  has  the  order  376, 
375),  385,  408,  419,  576,  669-678.  865,  887-888,  950-960,  967-970, 
(P  has  the  order  969,  968),  982-984,  988-989,  990-991,  1020  (in 
different  order),  1036,  1108,  1116,  1125-1126,  1159,  1192-1204, 
1212-1236,  1277-1279,  1328-1330,  1336-1337,  1349,  1350,  1353-1358 
(A  omits  1353).     A  omits  456b^ 

The  following  lines  show  minor  variations:  331,  342,  343,  587, 
690,  875,  975,  1332. 


CHAPTER  III. 


PSEUDOLUS 


The  Pseudolus  was  a  favorite  with  Plautus  himself, 
if  we  may  believe  Cicero  (De  8enect,  14,  50),  and  its 
lively  action  and  exuberant  humor  have  made  the  play 
popular  ever  since.  The  situation  is  the  old  one  of  the 
youth  in  love.  This  time  his  name  is  Calidorus,  the  girl 
is  called  Phoenicium,  her  master  Ballio,  and  the  title- 
role  is  taken  by  Pseudolus,  the  slave  of  the  young  lover. 
In  the  first  scene,  Calidorus  shows  Pseudolus  a  letter  from 
Phoenicium,  announcing  that  she  has  been  sold  to  a  Mace- 
donian soldier  for  twenty  minae;  three-quarters  of  the 
sum  have  already  been  paid,  and  she  is  to  be  handed  over, 
on  the  payment  of  the  last  quarter,  to  the  soldier's  mes- 
senger, who  is  to  bring  an  impression  of  his  master's  seal- 
ring  as  identification;  the  limit  set  for  the  payment  of 
the  balance  is  the  next  feast  of  Dionysus,  which  falls  on 
the  morrow.  Ballio  is  next  introduced — a  brutal  char- 
acter at  best,  and  especially  brutal  to-day,  because  it  is 
his  birthday,  and  he  is  planning  to  give  a  grand  dinner. 
Calidorus  appeals  to  him  for  six  days  of  grace  on  the 
payment  of  twenty  minae  for  Phoenicium,  is  told,  to  his 
surprise  and  delight,  that  she  is  not  for  sale,  and  then 
hears  that  she  has  already  been  sold  to  a  Macedonian 
soldier — with  all  the  details  just  as  they  were  given  in 
the  first  scene,  except  that  the  time  set  for  the  payment 
of  the  other  five  minae  is  "  to-day."  Pseudolus  under- 
takes to  help  his  young  master,  frankly  confesses  his 
purpose  to  the  father,  Simo,  and  warns  the  old  gentleman 

67 


68 


EETEACTATIO    IN    PLAUTIJS 


that  he  intends  to  cheat  him.  He  adds  that  he  is  plan- 
ning a  second  campaign,  against  the  leno  Ballio.  If  he 
succeeds  in  both  plots,  Simo  is  to  pay  for  the  girl.  Simo's 
friend  Callipho  promises  to  remain  at  home  that  day  and 
lend  his  aid  to  the  schemer.  Lnck  throws  into  the  hands 
of  Psendolus  a  sealed  letter  from  the  miles;  so  a  rogue 
who  rivals  Pseudolus  himself  in  cleverness  is  dressed  up 
like  the  soldier's  messenger,  and  sent  to  Ballio,  with  the 
letter  and  five  minae,  Ballio  recognizes  the  soldier's  seal, 
delivers  the  girl  to  the  messenger,  and  is  then  so  sure  of 
safety  from  attack  that  he  offers  to  give  Simo  twenty 
minae  if  Pseudolus  succeeds.  But  when  the  real  mes- 
senger of  the  miles  appears,  it  becomes  evident  that  the 
trick  is  already  played,  and  that  Ballio  is  the  victim. 
Simo  acknowledges  that  Pseudolus  has  won  his  twenty 
minae,  and  the  money  is  handed  over,— to  a  very  drunk 
and  very  impudent  slave. 

The  plot  of  the  Pseudolus  shows  obvious  inconsistencies. 
The  explanation  given  in  the  letter   (11.   51-59)    makes 
the  later  account  of  the  sale  of  Phoenicium  superfluous, 
and  the  attitude  of  Calidorus — his  tender  solicitude  for 
the  girl  (1.  231),  his  unboimded  joy  when  he  hears  that 
she  is  not  for  sale  (11.  323  ff.),  his  despair  when  the  truth 
is  finally  told  (11.  342  ff.) — is  quite  incomprehensible  in 
one    already   familiar   with   the    contents   of   the    letter. 
There  is  a  discrepancy,  too,  about  the  time  when  the  final 
payment   of  the  miles   is   due — hodie    in   the   one   case 
(11.  373  f.,  623  f.),  eras  in  the  other  (11.  60,  82).     Calli- 
pho, whom  we  expect  to  take  a  prominent  part  in  the  action 
after   his   promise   of    aid   to   Pseudolus    (11.    547-560), 
disappears  from  the  stage  at  the  end  of  the  scene  and  is 
never  mentioned  again. 


PSEUDOLUS 


69 


Ladewig  ^  noticed  some  of  the  discrepancies,  and  sug- 
gested that  the  Pseudolus  really  contained  two  plots  :  (1) 
the  duping  of  the  old  man  to  get  the  money;  and  (2)  the 
duping  of  the  leno  to  get  the  girl.  But  other  scholars 
paid  little  attention  to  this  suggestion.  Langen  ^  noted 
a  number  of  difficulties  in  the  plot,  without  attempting 
to  explain  them  by  coniaminatio,  and  Leo  ^  confined 
his  hint  of  two  originals  in  the  Pseudolus  to  a  foot-note. 
In  1897,  Bierma*  made  a  detailed  analysis  of  the  play, 
and  this  analysis,  modified  by  Seyffert,^  Leo,^  and  lately 
by  Schmitt,*^  is  the  basis  of  work  today. 

It  is  evident  that  the  Pseudolus  does  not,  like  the  Miles 
and  the  Poenulus,  combine  two  full  plots,  but  that  certain 
scenes  from  one  plot  have  been  worked  into  the  other. 
The  two  plots  agree  in  general  features  :  in  both,  the 
difficulties  of  the  young  man  in  love  are  removed  by 
the  clever  slave  ;  in  both,  the  father  has  received  some 
warning  of  the  slave's  plans,  and  has  to  pay  over  a  sum 
of  money  at  the  end.  The  two  plots  may  be  sketched  as 
follows  :  (A)  The  girl  with  whom  the  young  man  is  in 
love  has  been  sold  to  a  Macedonian  soldier  ;  part  payment 
has  been  made,  and  the  balance  is  due  on  the  day  that 
the  play  opens.  The  slave  outwdts  the  leno  by  getting 
possession  of  the  soldier's  letter,  and  sending  a  messenger 


^  Th.  Ladewig,  Vher  d.  Kanon  des  Volcatius  Sedigitus,  Neu-stre- 
litz,  1842,  pp.  32  f. 

*  Langen,   Plant.   Stud.,   pp.    198  flf. 
'  Leo,  Plant.  Forsch.,  p.   153,  n.  2. 

*  J.  W.  Bierma,  Quaestiones  de  Plautina  Pseudolo,  Groningen,  1897. 
'Seyffert  in  Berl.  Phil.  Woch.   18    (1898),  colL    1511-1515. 
•Leo  in  Nachr.  Gbtt.   Ges.   1903,  pp.   347-354. 

'  A.  Schmitt,  De  Pseudoli  Plautinae  exemplo  Attico,  Strassburg, 
1909.  (Accessible  to  me  only  in  a  review  by  M.  Niemeyer  in  Berl, 
Phil.   Woch.  30    (1910),  coll.   870-873). 


70 


EETBACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


with  it  to  fetch  the  girl.     The  actual  cost  of  the  girl  is 
defrayed  by  the  young  man's  father,  who  has  previously 
agreed  to  pay  this  sum  if  the  slave's  ruse  succeeds ;  but 
he  is  reimbursed  by  the  leno,  who  has  in  the  meantime 
promised  him  twenty  minae  on  the  same  conditions.     So 
the  leno  is  ruined,  and  his  fall  is  all  the  greater  because 
the  scene  is  laid  on  his  birthday.^     (B)    The  young  man 
needs  twenty  minae  to  pay  for  the  girl,  the  morrow  being 
the  last  opportunity.     The  slave  gets  this  sum  by  cheat- 
ing the  father,  after  he  has  announced  his  intentions  and 
warned  the  old  man  to  be  on  his  guard.     In  the  trick 
(the  details  of  which  we  can  not  fill  out)  he  has  the  help 
of  the  father's  friend  Callipho.     To  the  first  plot   (A) 
belong  I.,  2,  3 ;  II.,  2-IV.,  8 ;  to  the  second  (B)  :  I.,  1  (ex- 
cept 11.  51-59),  4,  5  (except  11.  522-546) ;  V.,  2.     Plautus 
himself  made  some  changes;  he  added  11.  51-59,  and  522- 
546  ^  (elements  from  plot  B)  to  plot  A;  he  combined  the 
two  plots  in  II.,  1 ;  and  he  added  V.,  1  ^^  and  certain 
details  (e.  g.  1.  1308)  in  V.,  2. 


•It  is  possible  that  this  motif  had  even  more  prominence  in  the 
original.-  It  is  emphasized  in  11.  165,  167,  179,  234,  243,  1237, 
and  forms  the  sole  connecting  link  between  Act  III.  and  the  rest 
of  the  play.  Cf.  Bierma,  De  Plant.  Pseud.,  pp.  40  ff.,  87  f.;  Leo 
in  'NacJir.  Oott.  Ges.  1903,  p.  352. 

•The  insertion  is  unskillfully  made,  and  has  resulted  in  some 
confusion.  As  the  dialogue  stands,  Simo  agrees  that  if  Pseudolus 
succeeds  in  both  plots  (i.  e.,  the  duping  of  Simo  himself  and  the 
duping  of  Ballio)  Simo  will  pay  him  twenty  minae.  The  original 
bargain  in  plot  B  must  have  been  that  Simo  would  pay  the  money 
if  Pseudolus  succeeded  in  cheating  Ballio.  Cf.  Leo  in  Nachr.  Gott. 
Ges.  1903,  pp.  349  ff. 

*•*  Hence  the  double  motivation  of  the  entrance  of  Pseudolus  (11. 
1282,  1283),  and  of  Simo's  return  to  the  stage  (11.  1239  ff..  1285). 
Cf.  Leo,  Plaut.  Cant.,  p.  41,  note,  in  Ahhandl.  Gott.  Ges.,  1896-1897. 


PSEUDOLUS 


71 


Exp<5rgi   meliust   Ifimbos  atque   exstirgier: 
Plautlna  longa   fibula   in  scaenSm   uenit. 

Prologue  (II  1-2).  Both  the  Ambrosian  Palimpsest 
and  the  Palatine  manuscripts  give  these  two  lines,  which 
bear  the  mark  of  the  Plautine  Kevival  in  the  phrase 
Plautina  longa  f alula.  (Cf.  Cas.  Prol.  12).  A  pro- 
logue is  really  unnecessary  for  the  exposition  of  the  Pseu- 
dolus,'^^ and  Lindsay  ^^  therefore  concludes  that  the  ex- 
tant couplet  formed  the  whole  of  the  later  stage-man- 
ager's introduction.  But  though  the  play  may  be  per- 
fectly clear  without  the  prologue,  the  prologue  in  its 
present  form  is  far  from  clear.  The  comparative  melius 
(1.  1)  demands  as  least  an  implied  positive,  and  there  is 
no  expressed  subject  for  the  infinitives  exporgi  and  exsur- 
gier.  The  extant  prologue  must  therefore  have  been 
preceded  by  several  lines,  and  it  was  probably  followed 
by  others  giving  the  name  of  the  Plautina  fahula  and 
making  the  usual  request  for  quiet.^^ 

P  prefixes  the  prologue  to  Argument  I.     (omitting  Argument  II.). 
A    places    the    prologue    immediately    before    Scene    I.    (omitting 
Argument   I.   and  giving  Argument   II.   in   a   later   hand). 


PS.     'Nunc  n6stri  amores,  m6res,  consuetfldines, 

locus  Itidus,  sermo,  suaui[s]sauiatio, 

Compr6Svsiones    drtae    amantum    comparum, 

Tenerls  labellis  molles  morsiflnculae, 

Nostrorum  orgiorum  ♦  g  *  *  *  itinculae, 

Papillarum  horridulJlrum  oppress! tinculae'. 

Hartinc    uoluptatum    mlhi    omnium    atque    itid^m    tibi 

Distractio,    discldiura,    uastiti^s    uenit. 


64 
65 


67* 


70 


"Leo,  Plaut.  Forsch.,   p.  196. 
"Lindsay,  Anc.  Edd.,   p.  1,  note  a. 
"Leo,  Plaut.  Forsch.,   p.  197. 


72 


RETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


67".  The  verse,  as  Lowe  ^*  noted  when  he  tried  to  re- 
construct its  reading  from  the  Palimpsest,  is  not  appro- 
priate here,  for  it  inserts  a  phrase  of  general  nature  in 
a  list  of  specific  details.  He  likewise  objected  to  the 
word  orgia,  which  does  not  appear  elsewhere  in  Koman 
literature  before  Catullus.  Leo  ^^  surmised  that  the  line 
might  be  a  later  addition  to  1.  64,  and  this  hypothesis  is 
possible,  although  in  the  broken  state  of  the  text  it  is  hard 
to  reach  definite  conclusions. 


P  omits  67*'. 


Nempe  ita  animati  |  ^stis  uos:  uincltis  duritia  hoc  fitque  me     151 

Hoc  8ls  uide  ut  alias  r6s  agunt.     hoc  agite,  hoc  animum  aduortite. 

Hue  adhibete  auris  quae  ^go  loquar,  plagigera  genera  |  homi- 

num. 

Numquam  €depol  uostrum  dfirius  tergum  6rit  quam  terginum  h6c 

meum. 

Quid     ntinc?     doletne?     em     sic     datur,     siquis     erum     seruos 

sp6rnit*  155 

Adslstite  omnes  contra  me  et  qua€  I6quar  aduortite  finimum. 

151-156,  Even  the  general  wordiness  of  Ballio's 
speech  does  not  excuse  the  three  commands  to  pay  at- 
tention (11.  152,  153,  156)  in  so  brief  a  space.  Vincitis 
duritia  hoc  \_terginum']  atque  me  (11.  151),  and  numquam 
edepol  nostrum  durius  tergum  erit  quam  terginum  hoc 
meum  (1.  154),  have  the  same  idea  at  base,  though  the 
turn  given  to  it  is  different  ;  and  the  two  lines  are  intoler- 
able together.  Hoc  (1.  151)  must  mean  terginum  (cf.  1. 
154),  and  though  the  action  on  the  stage  probably  helped 
to  make  the  sentence  clear,  still  the  postponement  of  the 
noun  is  at  least  noticeable.     There  are  two  cases  of  verbal 

"G.  Lowe,  Analecta  Plauiina,  Leipzig,  1877,  pp.  153  ff. 
>*Leo,  Ed.    (1896),  ad  loc. 


PSEUDOLUS 


73 


repetition:  152  animum  advortite,  cf.  156  advortite 
animum;  153  quae  ego  loquar,  cf.  156  quae  loquar, 
Therefore  it  seems  possible  that  we  have  two  versions  : 
(1)  151-153  ;  (2)  154-156.  Of  these,  the  second  is 
probably  Plautine,  for  the  phrase  contra  me  (1.  156)  to 
which  Lorenz  ^®  objected,  is  paralleled  in  Pers,  13,  and 
the  clearness  of  1.  156,  as  opposed  to  1.  151,  together  with 
the  play  on  tergum  .  .  .  terginum,  counts  in  its  favor. 

P  has  the  verses  in  the  order  of  the  Goetz-Schoell  text. 
A  has  the  whole  passage,  but  puts  153  after  154. 


Tfbi  hoc  praecipio  ut  niteant  aedes:   habes  quod  facias:    propera, 

abi   intro.  161 

TO  esto  lectist^rniator.     tfl  argentum  eluito,  Idem  exstruito. 
Ha^,  quom  ego  a  foro  reuortor,  facite  ut  offendSm  parata, 
versa  sparsa,  t^rsa  strata,  latitaque  unctaque  6mnia  uti   sint. 
Nam   mi   hddie    nataUs   dies   est:    decet   6um   omnis   uos   conc^le- 

brare.  165 

Pernam   callum   glandlum  sumen   facito   In   aqua   iaceant.     satin 

audis? 

Magnlfice    uolo    me    ulros    summos    acclpere,    ut    mihi    rem    ess6 

reantur. 

Intro  abite  atque  haec  cite  celebrate,  ne  m6ra  quae  sit,  cocus  qu6m 

veniat   [mihi]. 

166.  This  verse  breaks  the  close  connection  between 
1.  165  and  1.  167,  and  is  quite  out  of  place  here  under  any 
circumstances.  Ballio  has  finished  his  individual  com- 
missions in  1.  162,  and  11.  163-168,  with  the  sole  exception 
of  1.  166,  are  general  directions  in  the  plural.  ^"^ 

The  line  is  given  in  both  A  and  P. 


"A.  Lorenz  in  Philol.  35    (1876),  p.   159. 

"  Cf.  H.  Usener  in  Index  schol.  Oryphiswald.,  1866,  pp.  13  ff. 


74 


EETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


t  Xytilis,  face  ut  Snimum  aduortas,  quofus  amator6s  oliui  210 

Dynamin   domi   habent  maxiimam: 
SI   mihi   non    iara   hue    cfilleis 
61euin   deportatum   erit, 
Te  fpsam  cuUeo  6go  eras  faeiam  ut  d^portere  in  p4rgulam. 
Ibi    tibi    adeo    16ctus    dabitur,    tibi    tu    hau    somnum    cdpias,    sed 

ubi  215 

■^sque  ad  languor^m  — :   tenes 
Qu6  se  haec  tendant  qua6  loquor. 
Aln,    exeetra    tu,    qua6    tibi    amicos    t6t    babes    tarn    probe    6leo 

onustos  ? 
Num  quolpiamst  hodi^  tua  tuorum  6pera  conseru6ruin 

NltidiuscuMm     caput?     aut     num     ipse     ^go    pulmento     ut6r 

magis  220 

"C^nctiuscule  ?   sed   scio,    tu  |  6leum   hau   magni    p6ndis:    uino 

T6  deu[i]ngis.     sine  modo: 
Rgprehendam  ego  cuncta  h^rcle  una  opera,  nisi  quidem  tu  hodie 

6mnia 

Fficis  eflFecta  haec  tit  loquor. 

21 0-22 Jf.  As  the  text  stands,  this  whole  passage  is 
addressed  to  Xytilis.  The  length  of  the  tirade  is  quite 
out  of  proportion  to  the  speeches  addressed  to  the  other 
meretrices  (11.  188-193  ;  196-201  ;  225-229).  The  sense 
of  11.  210  f.  is  repeated  in  1.  218,  and  the  threats  of  11. 
222-224  are  an  anticlimax  after  11.  212-217.  It  is  pos- 
sible that  11.  218-224  are  a  second  version,  intended  to 
avoid  the  brutality  of  11.  210-217.^8 


The  passage  has  the   same  form  in  A  and  P. 


PS.    H6c  ego  oppidum  Sdmoenire  ut  h6die  capiatdr  nolo.  384 

Ad   earn   rem   usust   h6minem   astutum   d6ctum,  cautum  et  cfiUi- 

dum,  385 
Qui   Imperata  ecf^cta   reddat,   non  qui   uigilans  d6rmiat. 

OA.     C^o  mihi,  quid  63  facturus?     PS.    T^mperi  ego  fax6  scies. 


"E.   Norden  in  Rhein.   Mtis.  49    (1894),   pp.    197  ff. 


PSEUDOLUS 


75 


N6lo  bis  iterdri:    sat  sic   16ngae   fiunt   fabulae. 

CA.    6ptumum    atque    aequlssumum    oras.     PS.    Pr6pera,    adduc 

homin6m    cito. 
<CA.>    Patici  ex  multis  sfint  amici,  h6mini  qui  certi  sient.         390 
PS.    figo  scio  istuc:  6rgo  utrumque  tibi  nunc  dilecttim  para 
Atque  ex  multis  6xquire  illis  tinum  qui  cert(is  siet. 
<CA.>  lam  hie  faxo  aderit.     PS.    Potin  ut  [h]abeas?  tibi  moram 

dictis    creas. 

385-386.  The  end  of  this  scene  is  almost  hopelessly 
confused.  The  request  of  11.  385-386  is  repeated  in  11. 
724-728,  where  it  is  much  more  in  place  ;  for  Pseudolus 
has  by  that  time  gained  possession  of  the  letter  and  has 
formed  a  plan  in  which  he  needs  the  help  of  a  clever 
rogue.  The  reflection  of  Calidorus  (1.  390)  and  the  re- 
sponse of  Pseudolus  (11.  391  f.)  sound  as  if  Pseudolus 
had  really  asked,  not  for  a  rogue,  but  for  a  trusty  friend ; 
and  11.  697f.,  spoken  when  Calidorus  brings  in  his  friend 
Charinus,  agree  with  this  interpretation: 

Pseudolus  mihi   ita  imperavit,   ut  aliquem  hominem  strenuom 
Benevolentem  adducerem  ad  se. 

LI.  385-386,  then,  are  inappropriate  in  their  present 
position.  It  seems  possible  that  they  were  made  up  on 
the  model  of  11.  724  ff.,  and  got  into  this  position  by 
mistake,  crowding  out  a  bit  of  the  original  dialogue,  in 
which  Pseudolus  asked  for  the  aid  of  a  friend. 


The  passage  has  the  same  form  in  A  and  P. 


PS.    Atque  6go  me  iam  pridem  hulc   daturum  dixeram  406 

Et  u6lui  inicere  trfigulam  in  nostrtim  senem: 
Verum  Is  nescioquo  pScto  praesensit  prius. 

Jf.06-Ji.08.     The  vague  allusion  of  these  verses  is  not 


76 


EETEACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


PSEXJDOLUS 


77 


explained  by  anything  in  the  earlier  scenes  of  the 
Pseudolus,  and  the  difficulty  is  not  materially  lessened 
by  the  assumption  of  contaminatio}^  It  seems  probable 
that  the  passage  is  a  later  insertion,  suggested  by  11.  421- 
422  : 

SI.    Si  d^   damnoseis   aut  si  de  aiiiat6ribus  415 

Dictator  fiat  ntinc  Athenis  Atticis, 

Nemo   anteueniat   filio   cred6   meo. 

Ita    nCmc   per    urbem    s6lus    sermoni   omnibuat, 

Eum   u^lle   amicam    llberare   et   qua^rere 

Argentum  ad  earn  rem:   hoc  dlii  mihi  rentintiant 

Atque  Id  lam  pridem  s^nsi  et  subolebat  mihi,  421 

Sed   dlssimulabam.     PS.    lam    illi    fe  *  *  fHius: 

Oeclsast   haec   res,   ha^ret   hoc   negotium. 

One  notices  the  repetitions  :  406  iam  pridem,  cf.  421 
iam  pridem  ;  408  praesensit,  cf.  421  sensi  ;  and  the  fact 
that  huic  (1.  406)  has  no  antecedent. 

The  passage  occurs  in  both  A  and  P. 


PS.    Vin  €tiam  dicam  quod  uos  magis  mir^mini? 
CA.    Studeo  h#rcle  audire:    nam   ted  auscult6   lubens. 
SI.    Agedtim:   nam   satis  lub^nter  te  auscult6  loqui. 


522 

623»' 


523^'',  These  verses  are  clearly  doublets.  Abraham  ^° 
has  shown  conclusively  that  the  second  is  un-Plautine. 
Auscultare  in  Plautus  never  takes  a  complementary  in- 
finitive, and  is  never  joined  with  an  adverb,  but  always 
with  an  adjective ;  agedum  is  never  used  alone,  but  always 
with  another  imperative;  and  satis  lubenter  does  not 
occur  elsewhere  in  Plautus.     The  intention  of  the  author 

"Bierma's  explanation.     Cf.  De  Plant.  Pseud.,   pp.  38  f.,  56  f. 
^•W.   Abraham,   Studia  Plautina,  Leipzig,    1884,   pp.    182  flf. 


of  the  line  may  have  been  either  to  supply  a  variant  for 
1.  523',  or  to  add  another  verse,  and  so  give  both  the  old 
men  speaking  parts. 

P  has  the  verses  in  the  order  of  the  Goetz-Schoell  text. 
A  deest  2   sheets  =76  11. 

A  deest  477-551  =  77  11.    (including  523*'  and  543^. 
Therefore  A  probably  omitted  523^. 


ConcMere   aliquantlsper  hinc  mihi  intro   lubet, 
Dum  concenturio  in  corde  sycophantias. 
*****  non   ero  uobls   morae. 
Tiblcen  uos  int^ribi  hie  delectauerit. 


571 

573* 
573'' 


57S\  The  beginning  of  1.  573'  is  lost  in  the  Palimp- 
sest, but  enough  is  left  to  show  that  it  contained  much 
the  same  announcement  as  11.  571-572.  Interihi  (1.  573") 
must,  as  Baier  ^i  points  out,  refer  not  to  the  line  imme- 
diately preceding,  but  to  dum  concenturio  (1.  572). 
Therefore  1.  573'  is  probably  due  to  retractatio,  its  object 
being  to  announce  clearly  the  return  of  Pseudolus  in  the 
next  scene. 

P  omits  573'. 


SM  iam  satis  est  phllosophatum :  nimis  diu  et  longum  loquor     687 

Di  Immortales,   atirichalco  c6ntra  non   carlim  fuit 

MeGm  mendacium,  hlc  modo  quod  sfibito  commentus  fui, 

Quia  lenonis  m6  esse  dixi.     ntinc  ego  hac  epfstula  690 

Trls  deludam,  erum  6t  lenonem  et  qui  banc  dedit  mihi  epistulam. 

Etige:    par  pari   aliud  autem  qu6d  cupiebam   c6ntigit: 

V6nit   eccum    Calid6rus:    ducit   nfecioquem   sectim   simul. 

688  ff.     The   exultant   di   immortales,   with   which    1. 
688  begins,  echoes  1.  667,  and  the  tone  of  the  next  few 

^^B.    Baier,   De   Plauti   Fah.    Recenss.,   p.    128. 


78 


EETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


lines  is  what  we  should  expect  at  the  beginning  of  a 
speech.  This  is  particularly  strange,  because  Pseudolus  has 
just  announced  (1.  687)  :  sed  iam  satis  est  philosophatum, 
Leo  22  therefore  advances  the  plausible  theory  that  the 
speech  of  Pseudolus  originally  consisted  of  11.  667-687  sed 
iam  satis  est  philosophatum,  followed  by  690  nunc  ego 
hac  epistula  -693;  then  11.  688-690  quia  lenonis  me  esse 
dixi  were  substituted  for  the  early  part  of  this  scene; 
and  the  editor  who  combined  the  two  versions,  finding 
a  vacant  half  line  at  the  end  of  1.  687,  supplied  nimis 
diu  et  longum  loquor. 

The  piassage  has  the  same  form  in  A  and  P. 


CA.    Dtilcia  atque  amSra  apud  te  sum  4locutus  6mnia:  694 

Scls  amorem,  scis   laborem,  scis   egestat6m  meam. 
CH.    C6mmemini    omnia:    Id    tu    modo    me    quid    uis    facere    fdc 

sciam.  696* 

[CA.    Quora   haec   tibi    alia   sum   elocutus   uis    scires   si  scis   de 

symbolo. 

CH.     Omnia     inquam    tu     modo    quid    me    facere    uis     fac     ut 

sciam.]  696* 

696''\  These  two  lines,  which  are  in  part  a  verbal 
repetition  of  11.  694-696',  seem  to  offer  an  alternative 
version:  694  apud  te,  cf.  696*^  tihi;  694  sum  elocutus, 
cf.  696'  sum  elocutus;  696'  omnia,  cf.  696"  omnia;  696' 
tu  modo  me  quid  vis  facere  fac  sciam,  cf.  696"  tu  modo 
quid  me  facere  vis  fac  ut  sciam.  The  symholum  which 
is  introduced  so  abruptly  here  (1.  696**)  could  have  had 
no  special  significance  for  the  story  of  Calidorus,  though 
it  was  of  importance  in  the  trick  that  Pseudolus  planned 

=2  Leo,  Ed.    (1896),  ad  loc. 


PSEUDOLUS 


79 


to  play.     The  purpose  of  the  alteration  may  have  been 
to  emphasize  this  detail. 

A  omits   696'"' 


SI.    Viss6  quid  rerum  m6us  Vlixes  6gerit,  1063 
lamne  hdbeat  signum  ex  firce  Balli6nia. 

BA.    0  f6rtunate,  cMo  fortunatam  manum.  1065 
SI.    Quid    €stt     BA.    Iam  — SI.    Quid    iam?     BA.    Nil    est    quod 

metufis.  SI.    Quid    est? 

Venltne   homo  -ad   te?     BA.    N6n.     SI.    Quid   est  igittir   boni? 
BA.    Mina6   uiginti   s^nae   et   saluae    sdnt   tibi, 

Hodi6  quas  aps  te<d>  6st  stipulatus  Psetidolus.  1069 


SI.    Sed   c6nuenistin   h6minem?     BA.    Immo   amb6   simul. 

SI.    Quid    alt?     quid    narrat?     qua^so,    quid    dicit   tibi? 

BA.    NugSs  theatri:  u4rba  quae  in  comoMiis 

Solent  lenoni  dici,  quae  puerl  sciunt: 

Malum  4t  seelestum  et  p6iurum,  aibat  6sse  me. 

SI.    Pol  ha(i  mentitust.     BA.    6rgo  baud  irattjs  fui. 

Nam  quSnti   refert  el   nee   recte   dlcere^ 

Qui   nll<i>   faciat  quique   infitias   n6n   eat? 


1079 
1080 


1085 


1079-1086,  These  lines  were  suspected  of  being  due 
to  retractatio  by  Kiessling,^^  in  1868,  and  have  been 
bracketed  by  most  editors  since  then.  The  question  of 
1.  1079  is  a  surprise  after  1.  1067,  and  the  answer  an 
absolute  contradiction.  The  sense  of  the  two  questions 
is  the  same;  for  Simo  is  evidently  referring,  not  to  the 
meeting  with  Pseudolus  in  L,  3,  which  Ballio  describes, 
but  to  a  meeting  in  which  Pseudolus  might  have  tried 
to  trick  Ballio.  So  1.  1079  repeats  1.  1067,  and  the  whole 
passage  is  probably  a  later  addition. 

A  and  P  give  the  passage  in  the  same  form  through  1084 — then 
A  deest. 


23 


A.  Kiessling  in  Rhein.  Mus.  23    (1868),  pp.  425  f. 


80 


BETEACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


Hefis,    ubi    estis    uos?     <BA.>   Hioquidem    ad    me    r4cta    habet 

rectam    uiam.  Ai^t> 

/HA.>   Hefi«,  ubi  estis  uos?     <BA.>    Hefis,  adulescens,  quid  istic 
^        ^  debetfir    tibi? 

B6ne  ego  ab  hoc  praedatus  ibo:    noui,  bona  scaeuSst  mihi 
/HA>    Acquis   hoc    aperit?     <BA.>    Heus,   chlamydate,    quid    istic 
^       ^        ^  debettir    tibi? 

<HA.>    A6dium    dominflm    lenonem    Ballionem    qua^rito.  lUO 

llSl,  L.  113 Y,  which  combines  1.  1136  and  1.  1139, 
was  probably  intended  as  a  substitute  for  11.  1136,  1138- 
1139.  If  1.  1137  were  genuine,  we  should  expect  it  to 
be  followed,  not  by  another  aside  by  Ballio  (1.  1138), 
but  by  the  answer  of  Harpax  (1.  1140).'^^ 

Both  A  and  P  give  1.   1137. 


B\     fidepol  hominem  uerberonem  Psetidolum,  ut  doct6  dolum    120o 
C6mmentust:    tanttindem   argenti   qu&ntum   miles   d^buit 
D4dit    huic    atque    hominem     6xornauit,     mtilierem     qui     abdu- 

ceret.  1207.    1208 

1205-1201.  An  attempt  to  cut  out  11.  1162-1204  may 
be  indicated  by  the  repetition  of  11.  1205-1207  after 
1.  1161. 

BA.    Quid   ogimus?    manuf^sto   teneo   hunc   h6minem   qui   argen- 

tum   attulit.  1160 

SI.   Quidum?     BA.   An  nescis  qua€  sit  haec  res?     SI.    Tflxta  cum 

ignarlssumis. 

BA.    Peefidolus  tuos  dllegauit  htinc,  quasi  a  Mac^donio 

Mllite   esset. 

A  has  the  passage  in  the  order  of  the  Goetz-Schoell  text. 
P   has   1205-1207    both   after    1161   and  after    1204 


2*  The    first    scholar    to    suspect    the    line    was    Fleckeisen.     Cf. 
RitschVs  Ed.  of  Pseud,   (1850),  Praef.,  pp.  xiiif. 


PSEUDOLUS 


81 


BA     fidepol    ne    istuc    mSgis    magisque    m^tuo,    quom    uerba   «a(i- 

dio.  1214 

[BA.]    Mlhi  quoque   edepol   ifim   dudum   ille   Sfirus   cor    perfrige- 

facit, 

Sflmbolum  qui  ab  hoc  accepit.     mfra  sunt,  ni  Pseiidolust. 

121Jf-1216.  The  first  of  these  verses  is  the  same  in 
sense  as  the  last  two,  and  the  word  edepol  is  repeated. 
It  is  worth  noting,  also,  that  the  best  manuscripts  of  the 
Palatine  family  prefix  BA.  to  1.  1215.  Perhaps  1.  1214 
was  substituted  by  the  same  reviser  who  cut  out  11. 
1162-1204,  who  accordingly  wished  to  avoid  the  name 
Sums.     (Cf.   1.   1203).2« 

The  passage  has  the  same  form  in  A  and  P. 

The  results  of  work  on  the  Pseudolus  are  somewhat 
unsatisfactory.  After  the  imdoubted  evidences  of  retrac- 
tatio  in  the  prologue,  we  expect  to  find  further  traces  of 
change  in  the  text  of  the  play.  But  only  11.  523,**  688  ff., 
1137  can  be  put  down  with  any  degree  of  certainty  as 
later  versions.  In  many  other  places  (e.  g.,  11.  166, 
385  ff.),  though  there  is  unquestionably  something  wrong 
with  the  text,  it  is  hard  to  locate  the  trouble  exactly. 
Certain  lines  preserved  in  A  alone  (11.  67^  573*)  are 
probably  due  to  retractatio,  but  are  so  fragmentary  that 
any  statement  about  them  must  be  qualified.  Two  pas- 
sages (11.  151-156,  210-224)  seem  to  present  parallel 
versions;  11.  406-408  are  apparently  a  later  addition;  and 
11.  1205-1207  were  perhaps  inserted  after  1.  1161  to 
shorten  the  scene.  ^^ 


25 


Ribbeck  suspected  the  verse.     Cf.  Ritschl's  Ed.  of  Men.    (1851), 

Praef.,  p.  xv. 

^In  addition   to  the   passages   discussed  in   detail,  the   following 

lines  of  the  Pseudolus  have  also  been  suspected:    65,  82,  91  ff.,  97, 


82 


RETKACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


In  these  cases  of  retractatio,  possible  or  probable,  the 
two  families  of  manuscripts  are  almost  evenlj  balanced. 
Most  passages  have  the  same  form  in  both.  A  is  the 
only  one  to  preserve  11.  67',  573".  P  alone  has  11.  696'' 
and  repeats  11.  1205-1207,  and  A  probably  omitted  1. 
523'  also.  But  at  least  the  Pseudolus  shows  that  A  is 
not  a  purer  text  than  P. 


116,  142,  176,  177,  205-208,  238,  259-263^  269,  284,  292-295,  307, 
336!.,  384,  398,  403,  422,  467,  485,  497-499,  502  f.,  527,  530,  543S 
544,  550,  565  f.,  576  f.,  585^  586,  599,  600,  737-750,  759-766,  767- 
904,  768,  781  f.,  842  f.,  866-889,  936-939^  944,  1002-1008,  1025-1031, 
1043,  1073,  1093,  1097,  1098,  1196,  1204,  1245,  1259-1261,  1277  f., 
1314. 

These  suspected  passages  are  preserved  as  follows:  A  deest:  238, 
259-263^  485,  497-499,  502  f.,  527,  530,  543^  544,  550  737-750,  759- 
766,  767-904,  768,  781  f.,  1025-1031,  1043,  1093,  1097,  1098,  1259- 
1261,  1277  f.  Both  A  and  P  have  65,  82,  91  ff.,  97,  116,  142,  176, 
177,  205-208,  269,  284,  307,  336  f.,  384,  398,  403,  467,  565  f.,  576  f., 
585^  586,  599,  600,  842  f.,  866-889,  936-939^  944,  1002-1008  (A 
transposes  1002,  1003),  1073,  1196,  1204,  1245,  1314.  A  omits  293- 
295,   and  places  292   after   296.     P  omits   422. 

The  text  of  the  Pseudolus  shows  an  unusually  large  number  of 
slight  differences  between  the  two  families  of  manuscripts.  Varia- 
tions of  a  word  or  phrase  occur  in  the  following  lines:  85,  152,  208, 
223,  298,  308,  315,  321,  340,  372,  375,  385,  389,  391,  392,  397,  418, 
432,  433,  451,  621,  627,  631,  659,  669,  700,  723.  841,  843,  856,  864, 
873,  889,  901,  954,  955,  975,  978,  992,  997,  1175,  1204,  1220,  1294, 
1295,   1299. 


^2 

Hi 


CHAPTER  IV. 

X 

STICHUS 

The  opening  scene  of  the  Stichus  introduces  two  sisters, 
whose  husbands  have  left  home  three  years  before  to 
repair  their  damaged  fortunes,  and  have  not  been  heard 
from  since.  Their  father,  Antipho,  wishes  them  to 
marry  again,  but  they  firmly  refuse.  The  elder  sister, 
Panegyris,  sends  for  the  parasite  Gelasimus,  explaining 
that  she  wishes  to  dispatch  him  to  the  harbor  for  special 
tidings.  But  before  he  reaches  her  door,  the  slave  who 
is  regularly  on  the  watch  comes  from  the  port  with  the 
news  that  Epignomus  and  Pamphilippus  have  arrived. 
Epignomus  and  his  slave  Stichus  appear  on  the  stage; 
Stichus  asks  for  a  holiday,  and  receives  permission  to 
go  to  a  banquet  with  Sagarinus,  the  slave  of  Pamphilip- 
pus, and  Stephanium,  who  is  arnica  amhohus.  Then 
follows  a  series  of  scenes  in  which  the  parasite  makes 
desperate  efforts  to  get  an  invitation  to  dinner,  but  is 
repulsed,  and  the  two  brothers,  who  have  in  the  mean- 
time become  reconciled  with  their  father-in-law  and  with 
their  wives,  plan  a  banquet  together.  After  this  Stichus 
comes  on  again,  ready  for  the  feast,  and  through  the  last 
six  scenes  of  the  play  he  and  his  two  friends  drink  and 
dance  and  sing. 

"  Ein  ratselhaftes  Stiick,"  said  Teuffel  ^  of  the  Stichus, 
and  the  play  has  remained  "  a  puzzle  '^  to  scholars  ever 

*W.  Teuffel   in  Ehein.  Mus.  8    (1853),  p.  38    {=8tud.  u.  Char.* 
p.  340). 

83 


84 


EETEACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


since.  All  are  agreed  ^  that  the  play  which  we  possess 
is  very  (liferent  from  the  "  Adelphoe  Menandru  " 
which  the  didascalia  names  as  its  source.  Eitschl  ^  char- 
acterized the  Stichus  as  "  ansserst  fluchtig  skizzirt,"  and 
Leo  ^  has  said  of  it  in  recent  years,  "  Die  Teile  sind  sehr 
hiibsch,  das  Ganze  nnmoglich." 

The  play  opens  as  if  it  were  to  hinge  upon  the  faith- 
fulness of  two  wives  to  their  husbands.  The  second, 
third,  and  fourth  acts,  in  which  the  husbands  return  and 
become  reconciled  with  their  father-in-law,  are  slightly 
connected  with  the  theme  of  the  first  act,  though  they 
give  much  less  prominence  to  the  women  than  we  should 
expect.  But  in  the  fifth  act  all  these  characters  disap- 
pear from  the  stage,  and  the  rest  of  the  play  is  taken 
up  with  the  banquet  of  their  slaves. 

The  slight  connection  of  Act  Y.  with  the  rest  of  the 
play  led  Goetz  ^  to  suspect  retradatio,  and  Winter  ^  even 
assimied  that  a  later  author  combined  two  plays  of 
Plautus  to  make  the  Stichus.  But  such  composition  is 
not  impossible  for  Plautus  himself."^  We  remember  that 
he  was  sometimes  unsuccessful  in  combining  two  Greek 
comedies,  and  that  he  sometimes  left  out  important  scenes 
at  the  close  of  a  play.  (Cf.  Cas.  641;  CisL  782  ff.) 
So  the  lack  of  unity  in  the  Stichus  is  not  a  sufficient 
reason  for  denying  the  play  in  its  present  form  to  him. 


^'W.  Siiss  in  Rhein.  Mus.  65  (1910),  pp.  452  fF.,  tries  to  prove 
that  the  Stichus  accurately  represents  the  Greek  original. 

'Ritschl,  Parerga,  p.  280. 

*  Leo  in  Nachr.  Gott.  Ges.  1902,  p.  376. 

^  Goetz  in  Acta  soc.  phil.  Lips.  6    (1876),  pp.  302  ff. 

«F.  Winter,  Plauti  Fahularum  Deperditarum  Fragmenta,  Bonn^ 
1885,  pp.  82fiF. 

^Cf.   Leo,   Plant.   Forsch.,   pp.    150  ff.;    Leo    in   yachr.   Gott.    Ges, 

1902,  p.  377. 


STICHUS 


85 


Such  a  lack  of  unity  would,  however,  have  been  im- 
possible in  the  Greek  original.  Even  Aristophanes 
makes  his  plays  center  around  one  or  two  principal 
characters,  who  take  part  in  the  riotous  scenes  at  the 
end  as  well  as  in  the  earlier  action;  and  the  Persa  of 
Plautus,  which  is  probably  based  on  an  original  of  the 
Middle  Comedy,  preserves  the  unity  of  characters  through 
the  banquet-scene.®  From  all  that  we  know  of  'New 
Comedy,  and  especially  of  Menander,  we  can  infer  that 
unity  of  character  was  still  more  essential  there.  Before 
the  discovery  of  the  Cairo  papyrus,  Wilamowitz  declared 
that  Menander  could  never  have  joined  humano  capiti 
cervicam  equinam;  ^  and  we  to-day  can  make  the  state- 
ment even  more  positively.  The  fifth  act  of  the  Stichus, 
then,  must  contain  some  alteration  by  Plautus,  and  the 
passage  (11.  419-453)  which  prepares  for  Act  V.,  was 
probably  original  with  him.^^  We  notice  that,  as  the 
text  stands,  Stichus  remains  on  the  stage  after  he  has 
been  dismissed,  and  Epignomus  waits  awkwardly  through 
the  entire  monologue  of  Stichus  (11.  436-453).  If  11. 
419-453  were  cut  out,  the  transition  would  be  perfectly 
easy,  and  Epignomus  would  be  on  the  stage  for  the  begin- 
ning of  the  next  scene.  In  other  words,  11.  419-453  are 
a  necessary  preliminary  to  Act  V.  as  it  stands,  but  would 
be  quite  superfluous  in  a  play  which  did  not  end  with 
a  merry-making  among  slaves. 

But  while  we  recognize  the  faulty  construction  of  the 
play,  we  are  not  justified  in  assuming  that  Act  V.  was 
original  with  Plautus, ^^  or  even  that  its  presence  here 

'Leo  in  Naehr.  Gott.  Ges.  1902,  pp.  376 f. 
•Wilamowitz  in  Neue  Jahrh.  3    (1899),  p.  516. 
"Leo,  Plant.  Forsch.,  p.  152;   Nach/r.  Gott.  Ges.  1902,  p.  383. 
"Siiss  in  Rhein.  Mus.  65   (1910),  p.  453,  notes  the  large  number 
of  Greek  details  in  this  act. 


86 


RETEACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


STICHUS 


87 


is  due  to  contaminatio.  Leo  has  dissected  the  Siichus  ^^ 
and  found  in  it  material  from  three  Greek  plays:  (A) 
a  play  on  the  theme  of  the  faithful  wives;  (B)  a  play 
with  a  parasite  as  its  central  figure;  (C)  a  play  furnish- 
ing material  for  the  banquet-scene.  It  is  improbable 
that  Plautus  used  so  many  different  sources  as  this. 
The  more  likely  theory  is  that  a  single  original,  the 
Adelphoe  of  Menander,  is  the  basis  of  the  Siichus,  but 
that  the  plot  has  been  disturbed  by  omissions,  alterations, 
and  additions.  ^^  In  particular,  Plautus  seems  to  have 
changed  the  last  act,  perhaps,  as  Teuffel  suggested,^^  sub- 
stituting a  slaves'  banquet  ^^  for  the  masters'  banquet  in 
the  original  play. 

The  Stichus  is  unique  in  showing  evidences  of  re- 
tradatio  in  the  names  of  the  characters.  The  elder  of 
the  two  sisters  appears  in  the  text  of  both  A  and  P 
(11.  247,  331)  as  Panegyris,  and  the  same  name  occurs 
in  the  scene-heading  of  II.,  2,  in  A  and  in  P,  and  in  the 
heading  of  L,  1  in  P.  A,  on  the  contrary,  gives  her  name 
as  Philumena  in  the  scene-heading  of  I.,  1.  The  name 
of  the  other  sister  does  not  occur  in  the  text,  but  is  given 
in  the  scene-heading  of  I.,  1  as  PampJiila  in  A,  and  as 
Pinacium  in  P.  A  recent  study  of  the  scene-headings  in 
the  manuscripts  of  Plautus  ^^  has  made  it  evident  that 

"Leo  in  l^achr.  Gott  Ges.  1902,  pp.  381  ff. 

"Schanz,  Rom.  Literaturgesch.  I.,  l^  p-  91. 

"Teuffel  in  Rhein.  Mus.  8    (1853),   pp.  39  f.    (=  Stud,  u.  Char.,^ 

p.  342). 

^The   slaves'    banquet   followed    Greek,    not    Roman    custom.     Cf. 

11.  446-448. 

"H.  W.  Prescott  in  Harvard  Studies  9    (1898),  pp.  102-108.     Cf. 

Lindsay,  A7ig.  Edd.,  pp.   102  f. 


r 


the  names  of  the  characters  as  they  appear  in  the  scene- 
headings,  do  not  belong  to  the  direct  tradition  of  the 
Palatine  manuscripts,  but  were  at  some  period  filled  in 
from  the  text.  So  the  form  Pinacium  (which  is  appar- 
ently due  to  a  misunderstanding  of  1.  284)  has  no 
authority,  and  the  only  evidence  to  be  considered  is  that 
of  P  and  A  in  the  text,  and  of  A  in  the  scene-headings. 
From  this  evidence  we  may  infer  that  Panegyris  was  the 
original  name  of  the  elder  sister,  and  that  the  change  to 
Philumena  was  made  for  a  later  production.  As  to 
PampJiila^  there  may  be  some  doubt.  Since  this  sister 
is  nowhere  named  in  the  text,  there  is  no  direct  evidence 
against  the  name,  but  it  is  open  to  suspicion,  because  it 
appears  in  company  with  Philumena  in  A. 


PAN.     Credo  ego  miseram   fuisse  Penelopani, 
Soror,  suo  ex  animo,  quae  tam  diu  uidua 

Viro    suo   caruit:    nam    nos   eius   animum  2" 

De  n5stris  factis  noscimus,  quartim  uiri  hinc  apsunt, 
tQuorfimque   nos   negotiis   aps^ntum,   ita  ut  aequomst, 
SolHcitae  noct^s  et  dies,  soror,  sumus  semper.  5 

PA.     Nostrum   oflficium   nos   faeere    aequomst: 
Neque   Id  magis   facimus  quam  n6s   mo  net   pietas. 
Sed   hie,   m6a   soror,   adsidedum:    multa   nolo   tecum  7** 

Loqul   de   re    tuiri      <PAN.>    Salu^ne,    amabo? 

PA<N>.     Spero  quidem  et  uol6.     sed  hoc,  soror,  crticior: 

Patr^m  tuom   metimque  adeo,   unice  qui  Onus  10.    11 

Ciufbus   ex  omnibtis   probus   perhib^tur, 

E(im  nunc  inprobl  uiri  officio  titi,  13.     14 

Virls  qui  tantas  aps^ntibus  nostris  15 

Facit   fniurias    inm^rito 
Nosque    ab   eis    abduc^re   uolt. 

Haec    r6s   uitae    me,    soror,    saturant, 

Haec  mlhi   diuidiae  et  s^nio  sunt. 

PA<N.>   Ne  lacruma,  soror,  neu  tfio  id  animo  20 

Fac  qu6d  tibi   [tuos]   pater  facers  minatur. 

Spes  ^st  eum  melius  f^cturum. 


88 


BETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


STICHUS 


89 


25 


30 


Noui   6go   ilium:    ioculo   ista^  dicit: 
Neque  ill6  sibi  mereat  P^rsarum 
Montis  qui  esse   aurei   p6rhibentur, 
Vt    i«t(ic   faciat   quod   td   metuis. 
Tamen  si  faciat  minume  Irasci 

Decet:    n6que   id   immerito   eu^niet. 
Nam  uiri  nostri  domo  ut  iibierunt, 
Hie   t6rtius<t>   annus  — <PA.>    Ita   fit  memora^. 
<PAN.>    Quom   ipsi   Interea   uiufint,   ualeant, 

Vbi   sint,   quid   agant,   ecquld  agant, 
Neque    participant    nos   n^ue    redeunt. 
<PA.>     An  id  d6les,  soror,  quia  illi  suom  6fficium 
Non  e6lunt,  quom  tu  tuom  facis?     PAN.    Ita  pol.        35.  36 
PA.    Tace  sis:   caue  sis  audlara  ego  istuc 
Posthac  ex  te.     PAN.    Nam  quid  iam? 
PA.    Quia  pol  meo  animo  omnis  silpientis 
Suom  offleium  aequomst   col  ere   6t   facere.  40 

Quam  ob  rem  6go  te  hoc,  soror,  tam  etsfs  maior, 
Moneo   (it   tuom   memineris   officium: 
Et  si   Illi    improbi   sint   dtque    aliter 

tNos  fficiant  quam  aequomst,   tam  pol 
tNequid   magis  sit  omnibus   obnixe   opibus  45 

Nostrum  6fficium  meminlsse  decet. 
PAN.    Placet:   tficeo.     PA.     At  memineris  fScito, 
(<PAN.>    Nolo  6go,  soror,  me  cr^di  esse  inmemor^m  uiri: 
Neque  ille  e6s  honores  mlhi  quos  habuit  p6rdidit. 
Nam  p6l  mihi  grata  acc6ptaque  huiust  benlgnitaa:  50 

Et  m6   quidem   haec  condlcio   nunc   non   pa^nitet 
Nequ^st  quor   [non]   studeam  has  nQptias  mutarier. 
VerCm  postremo  in  patris  potestat#st  situm: 
Faciendum  id  nobis  qu6d  parentes  Imperant. 
<PA.>    Scio  atque  in  cogitando  maerore  atigeor:  55 

Nam  pr6pe  modum   iam  ost^ndit  suam  sent^ntiam. 
<PAN.>    Igitlir  quaeramus  n6bi9  quid   facto   (isus  sit.) 

Jf8-57,  This  passage  was  one  of  the  first  in  Plautus 
to  be  suspected  of  dittography.  It  gives,  in  briefer  form 
and  in  dialogue-verse,  the  substance  of  the  preceding 
canticum.  It  must  therefore  be  considered  a  variant 
for  the  lyrical  passage,  probably  introduced  in  order  to 
dispense  with  the  musical  accompaniment.     The  author 


seems  to  have  contented  himself  with  presenting  the  gen- 
eral situation  of  11.  1-47,  without  attempting  to  explain 
it  in  detail  (there  is  no  direct  statement,  e.  g.,  of  the 
father's  plan  to  give  his  daughters  in  marriage  again). 
On  the  other  hand,  he  has  borrowed  the  idea  of  11.  53, 
57  from  the  following  scene  (11.  68  ff.). 

A  omits  48-57. 


<AN.>   Prlncipium  ego   quo   pficto   cum   illis   ficcipiam,   id  rati6- 

cinor :  75 

Vtrum   ego   perplexim   lacessam  ordtione  ad  htinc  modum, 
Quasi    numquam   quicquam   adeo   adsimulem,    an   qudsi   quid    in- 

daudluerim 
Efis   in  se  merulsse  culpam:    an  potius  temptem  Igniter 
An  minacit^r.  scio  litis  f6re:    ego  meas  noui  6ptume. 
SI  manere  hie  s6se  malint  p6tius  quam  alio  ntibere,  80 

N6n  faciam:   quid  mi  6pust   decurso  aetatis  spatio  cfim  <m>ei8 
G^rere    bellum,    qu6m    nil    quam    ob    rem    id    fdciam    me    ruisse 

firbitror  ? 
^yilnume:    nolo  tflrbas.     sed  hoc  mihi  6ptumum  factu   drbitror, 
Sic  faciam:  adsimuUbo  quasi  quam  clilpiam  in  sese  admlserint: 
P4rplexabilit6r    earum    hodie    p^rpauefaoiam    p6ctora.  85 

P6stid  tagam  igitur  delude  ut  animus  m^us  erit  faciam  palam. 
Mfllta  scio   faciflnda  uerba:    ibo  Intro,     sed  apertast  foris. 

75-83,  The  order  of  these  verses  is  confused  in  P, 
and  the  whole  passage  is  full  of  difficulties.  Langen  ^"^ 
notes  the  peculiar  use  of  perplexim  (1.  76),  which  must 
refer  only  to  quasi  quid  indaudiverim  Eas  in  se  meruisse 
culpam  (11.  77  f.),  and  not  to  quad  numquam  quicquam 
adsimulem  (1.  77)  ;  the  unusual  construction  eas  in  se 
meruisse  culpam  (1.  78)  ;  the  position  of  potius  in  the 
first  instead  of  the  second  alternative  clause  (11.  78  if.)  ; 

"Langen,  Beitrage  zur  Kritik  u.  Erkldrung  des  Plautus,  Leipzig, 
1880,  pp.    147  ff. 


90 


KETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


STICHUS 


(>1 


and  the  adverb  minaciter  (1.  79),  not  found  elsewhere 
in  Plautus.  Langen  rejected  altogether  about  one-third 
of  11.  75-79,  and  rearranged  the  rest;  Leo  ^^  thought  that 
1.  79  was  an  interpolation,  and  leniter  (1.  78)  a  corruption 

for  saeviter. 

The  large  number  of  repetitions  from  the  verses  imme- 
diately preceding  and  following  is  noticeable  also;  76 
perplexim  (a  very  rare  form),  cf.  85  perplexahiUter ; 
77  adsimulem,  cf.  84  adsimulaho;  77  quasi  quid  indau- 
diverim  Eas  in  se  meruisse  culpam,  cf.  84  quasi  quam 
culpam  in  sese  admiserint;  79  ego  meas  novi  optume,  cf. 
73  novi  ego  nostros;  81  non  faciam,  cf.   84  sic  faciam. 

The  content  of  the  verses  does  not  in  itself  suggest  re- 
tradatio,  but  the  confusion  in  the  manuscripts,  combined 
with  the  many  irregularities  in  construction,  makes  one 
suspect  that  11.  75-83  (or  at  least  75-79)  are  by  a  later 
hand. 

A  has  the  verses  in  the  order  of  the  Goetz-Schoell  text. 
P  has  the  order:    80-83;    75-79;    70-74. 


GE.    Famem   ego   fuisse  stispicor   matr^m   mihi: 
Nam  postquam  natus  sfim,  satur  numquam  fui. 
Neque  qiifsquam  melius  r^feret  matri  grStiam, 
(Quam   ego   matri   mea6   refero    inuitlssumus. ) 
Neque  r^ttulit  quam  ego   refero  meae  matri   Fami. 


155 


158«' 


157  ff.     There  are  here,  as  Seyffert  recognized,^^  two 
versions : 

(1)      157    Neque   quisquam   melius    referet    matri    gratiam 
158"  Quam    ego    matri    meae    refero    invitissimus; 

i^Leo,  yachr.  Gott.  Ges.  1895,  p.  420,  n.  3;   Ed.    (189C).  ad  loc; 
'S/(whr.  Gott.  Ges.  1902,  p.  377. 

^"Seyifert,  Studia  Plautina,  Berlin,  1874,  p.  11,  n.  10. 


¥ 


(2)      157    Neque  quisquam  melius  referet  matri  gratiam 

158''  Neque  rettulit  quam  ego  refero  meae  matri  Fami. 

Of  the  two  forms  of  the  second  line,  158''  has  most  often 
been  taken  as  the  genuine.  It  is  less  awkward  than  158*, 
and  the  citation  by  Charisius  of  fami  in  the  dative,  from 
the  Stichus  of  Plautus,  proves  that  158*^  occurred  in  his 
sources,  and  that  Charisius  himself,  writing  in  the  fourth 
century  A.  D.,  regarded  it  as  genuine. 

A  has  157,  158" — i.  e.,  preserves  the  first  line  of  the  couplet,  and 
the  substitute  verse  for  the  second. 

P  omits  157,  but  has  158",  158**  —  i.  e.,  omits  the  first  line  of  the 
couplet,  but  preserves  both  versions  of  the  second  line. 


Nam  ilia  m^<d>  in  aluo  menses  gestauft  decem: 
At  6go  illam  in  aluo  g^sto  plus  ann6s  decem. 
Atque  flla  puerum  m^  gestauit  pSruolum, 
Quo   minus    laboris    c^pisse   illam   existumo: 
Ego  n6n  pausillulam  In  utero  gest6  famem, 
Verum   h6rcle  multo  mdximiam  et   graulssumam. 
Vterl   dolores    tmihi   oboriuntur   cotldie: 
Sed  mStrem  parere  n^queo  nee  quid  agSm  scio. 


159 
160 


165 


160  ff.  The  position  of  11.  165-166,  between  11.  160, 
161  in  A,  may  perhaps  indicate  a  shortening  by  the 
omission  of  11.  161-164.  ^^ 

A  places   165,    166  after   160. 

P  has  the  verses  in  proper  order. 


tAuditaui  sa^pe  hoc  uolgo  dicier, 
Sol  ere   elephantum    gntuidam    perpetuus    decem 
Esse  ^nnos :   eius  ex  s^mine  haec  certost  fames : 
Nam   idm  comp lures    iinnos    utero   haer^t   meo. 


167 


170 


167-170,     The  parasite's  account  of  himself  and  his 


20 


Lindsay,  Anc.  Edd.,  p.  55. 


92 


RETEACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


mother  comes  to  a  suitable  close  in  1.  166.  Then  11.  167- 
170  add  a  new  and  hardly  consistent  thought,  and  1.  170 
is  particularly  objectionable  because  complures  annos 
repeats,  in  weaker  form,  the  plus  annos  decern  of  1.  160. 
It  is  possible,  therefore,  that  these  verses  are  a  later  in- 
sertion,2i  made  in  order  to  expand  the  coarse  wit  of  the 
passage. 

The  passage  appears  in  both  A  and  P. 


Geiasimo  nomen  mlhi  indidit  paru6  pater,  174 

Quia   inde   iam  a  pausillo  pliero  ridicultis   fui.  175 

Propter  pauperiem  hoc  adeo  nomen  rgpperi, 

Eo  quia  paupertas  f6cit  ridicultis  forem: 

Nam  ilia  artis  omnis   p^rdocet,   ubi   quem  &ttigit. 

17Jfif.  Gelasimus  gives  two  explanations  for  his 
name:  (1)  that  his  father  gave  it  to  him  because  he  was  a 
droll  child;  (2)  that  he  received  the  name  because 
poverty  taught  him  to  be  witty.  A  connection  between 
these  two  thoughts,-^  though  possible,  is  rather  strained, 
and  it  seems  more  likely  that  we  have  here  two  parallel 
versions:  (1)  11.  174-175;  (2)  11.  176-178. 

A  and  P  both  contain  the  whole  passage,  in  the  order:   174,  176, 
175,  177,  178. 


Dicam   atietionis   catasam,   ut  damno   gafideant  — 
Nam  cfiriosus  n6most  quin  sit  mftleuolus — : 
[Ipse  ^gomet  quam  ob  rem  |  atictionem  pra6dicem:] 
Damna  6uenerunt  mSxuma  miser6  mihi. 


207 
208" 


208'',     The  verse  is  impossible  after  dicam  auctionis 


=^Langen,    Plant.    Stud.,    p.    372;    Leo,    N<whr.    Gott.    Ges.    1902, 
p.  379. 


Cf.  Langen,  Plant.  Stud.,  p.  76. 


STICHUS 


93 


causam   (1.  207),  but  is  probably  to  be  regarded  as  an 
interpolation,  explaining  1.  207,  rather  than  as  retractatio. 


A  omits  208*'. 


Haec  utoiisse  idm  opus  est  quantum  potest, 
Vt  d6cumam  partem   |   H6rculi  polMoeam. 


232 
233.  234 


232,  238,  These  verses  occur  in  A  after  208*  as  well 
as  in  their  proper  place.  The  repetition  may  indicate 
that  the  scene  was  to  be  shortened  by  omitting  11.  209- 
231.23 

A    (which   omits   208")    inserts  232,   233   between   208"   and  209. 
P  has  208%  208",  209  ff. 


437 


440 


445 


ST.    Jam  hercle  6go  per  hortum  ad  amioam  transib6  meam, 

Mi  banc   6ccupatum   n6ctem:    eadem   symbolam 

Dabo  6t  iubebo  ad  Sa[n]garinum  cendm  coqui. 

Aut  ^gomet  ibo  atque  Cpsonabo  ops6nium. 

Sa[n]garinus  scio  iam  hie   dderit   cum  domin6  suo 

Seru6s  homo:   qui  <ni>s<i  t6>m<p>er<i  a>d  cenam  meat, 

Adu6rsitores  p6l  cum  uerberibtis  decet 

Dari,   (iti   eum   uerberfibundum   abducent    domum. 

Parfita  res  faciiam  tit  sit.     egomet  m6  moror. 

Atque   Id   ne   uos   roir^mini,   hominis   s^ruolos 

Potare,  amare  atque  Sd  cenam  condlcere: 

Licet  ha6c  Athenis  n6bis.     sed  quom  c6gito, 

Potitis  quam   inuidiam   inu6niam,   est  etiam  hie   6stium 

Alitid  posticum  n6strarum  harunc  aMium: 

[Postfcam   partem   mfigis   utuntur   a^dium.] 

Ea  ibo  6bsonatum  atque  eddem   referam  ops6nium: 

Per  h6rtum  utroque   c6mmeatus   cCntinet. 

Ite  hac  secundum  u6smet:  ego  hunc  lacer6  diem. 


Jf-Jfl-Jf-Jf-B.     The  end  of  the  scene  is  unduly  protracted, 
and  Stichus  announces  his  departure  three  times  (11.  440, 


450"^ 
451 


23 


Lindsay,  Anc.  Edd.,  p.  55;   Ed.    (1905),  ad  loc. 


94 


EETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTTJS 


445  453)  before  he  finally  leaves  the  stage.  His  impa- 
tience with  the  delay  of  Sagarinus,  too,  is  quite  out  of 
place  here.  Baier  ^^  and  Leo  ^^  are  probably  right  m 
thinking  that  this  motif  was  taken  over  from  11.  641- 
648  where  it  is  much  more  appropriate,  and  that  11. 
441-445  were  inserted  at  the  time  of  the  later  production. 


P  omits   441-445. 


483 


485 


GE.    Quando  quidem  tu  ad  in6  non  uis  promlttere, 
(Sed  qiioniam  nil  process!  sat  ego   hac,  lero 
Ap^rtiore   magis   uia:    ita  plan6   loquar.) 

i8S-Jf85,  The  first  of  these  three  lines  (483),  begin- 
ning quando  quidem,  and  the  last  two  (484-485),  be- 
ginning sed  quoniam,  are  undoubtedly  parallel  versions. 
Of  the  two  versions,  the  second  (11.  484-485)  is  the  more 
subtle,  and  therefore  probably  the  genuine. 

P  omits   484-485. 


ST.     (Proin    tu    lauare    prSpera.    SA. 


Lautus    sum.    ST.    6p- 
tume :  668 

Sequere    ^rgo    |    hac    me    |    Intro.    SA.    Ego    uer6    sequor.) 
Volo   ^luamus  h6die:    peregrina  6mnia  ' 

Rellnque:  Athenas  ntinc  colamus:   s^uere  me. 
<SA.>    Sequor  6t  domum  redetindi  principidm  placet: 
Bona  sca6ua  strenaque  Cbuiam  occessit  mihi. 

668  ff.  The  close  of  this  scene  seems  to  have  been 
shortened  by  the  substitution  of  11.  668-669  for  11. 
670-673. 

P  has  the  verses  in  the  order  of  the  Goetz-Schoell  text. 
A  deest  1  sheet  =  38  11. 

=*  Baier,  De  Plauti  Fah.  Recems.,  pp.   123  f. 
=*  Leo  in  ^Sachr.  Gott.  Ges.  1902,  p.  379. 


STICHUS 


95 


A    deest    648-681  =  34    11. -f  2    scene-headings     (=4    11.).      Total, 

38  11. 
Therefore  A  probably  had  668,  669. 


<SA.>    Tlbi    propino.     d^ciimum    a    fonte    tibi    tute    inde,    si    sa- 

pis.  708 

B^ne  uos:   bene  nos:   b^ne  te:  bene  me:  b^ne  nostram  etiam  St6- 

phanium. 
Blbe[s],    si    bibis.     ST.    Non    mora    erit    apud    me.     SA.    6depol 

conuiui   sat   est:  710 

M6do  nostra  hue  amfca  accedat:   fd  abest,  aliud  nil  abest. 
<ST.>    L^pide   hoc  actumst.     tfbi   propino  canthanim.     <SA.>    Vi- 

ndm  tu  habes: 
Nlmis    uellem   laliquid    ptilpamenti.     ST.    Si    h6rum   quae   adsunt 

pa^nitet, 
Nil    est.     tene    aquam.     SA.    Melius    dicis:    nil    moror    cuppMia. 
Bibe,    tibicen:    ^ge    siquid    agis:     bfbendum    hercle    hoc    est:     n6 

nega.  715 


i 


'10-711.  These  verses  disturb  the  connection  equally 
here  and  in  the  position  to  which  Ritschl  transposed 
them  (after  1.  735).  Langen^^  noted  also  that  the  use 
of  mora  (1.  710)  in  the  sense  of  "  delay "  was  un- 
Plautine.  The  couplet  seems  to  be  introduced  for  the 
purpose  of  shortening  the  scene. ^"^ 

P  has  the  verses  in  the  order  of  the  Goetz-Schoell  tezt. 
A   deest   709   to  end  of  play. 

The  Stichus  shows  no  extensive  changes  due  to  re- 
tractatio,  but  there  are  traces  of  slight  alterations  all 
through  the  play,  from  the  name  of  the  elder  sister  at 
the  beginning  to  a  proposed  shortening  of  V.,  4.  The 
changes  seem  to  have  affected  especially  the  third  scene 
of  the  first  act.  There  are  a  number  of  passages  showing 
parallel  versions,  the  second  version  in  one  case  (11.  48- 
57)   evidently  being  intended  to  dispense  with  musical 

^Langen,  Beitrdge,  pp.    171   ff. 

"Leo,  Ed.    (1896),  ad.  loc;  Nachr.  Gott.  Ges.,  1902,  p.  378. 


96 


EETEACTATIO    IN    PLATJTUS 


accompaniment.  A  shortened  version  of  the  close  of  \  ., 
2  is  given,  and  a  couplet  (U.  710-711)  is  inserted  to 
shorten  V.,  4.  On  the  other  hand,  the  revisers  seem  to 
have  made  some  trivial  additions  to  the  original  thought 
(11.  167-170;  441-445). 2» 

The  evidence  of  the  Stichm  is  particularly  valuable 
because  we  can  consult  both  families  of  manuscripts  for 
nearly  all  the  questionable  passages.     Only  in  the  case 
of  11.  710,  711  is  it  absolutely  impossible  to  tell  v^hat  A 
contained;  for  calculation  makes  it  probable  that  11.  668, 
669    appeared    on    a   lost    page    of    A.      This    passage, 
then,    would   belong    in    the    same   class    with    11.    174- 
178     and   with    a   less   certain   case   of  retradaho    (11. 
167-170),  where  A  and  P  have  exactly  the  same  amount 
of  text.     Both  P  and  A  have  11.  75-83,  though  the  lines 
appear  in  different  order;  and  the  mixture  m  11.  157  ff. 
indicates  that  both  the  Plautine  and  the  substitute  version 
were  at  one  period  represented  in  both  families  of  manu- 
scripts.    There  is  one  place  (U.  48-57)  in  which  P  gives 
a  second  version  not  preserved  in  A,  and  several  cases 
(11  441-445  ;  483-485  ;  160  ff. ;  232  f.)  in  which  A  shows 
more  evidence  of  retradatio  than  P.     The  evidence  of 
the  SUchus,  therefore,  is  decidedly   against  the  theory 
that  A  is  the  purer  text. 


28 


-  In  addition  to  the  pa^ges  discussed  in  detail,  the  following 
lines  have  been  suspected:  84,  118-120,  12M25,  135,  179-180,  22o, 
294,   321,   330,   387,   425-435,  427-429,   450^   473-482,   535,   555,  590- 

59l!  681,  684,  746-747.  _  ^,a-±-. 

Of  these  lines,  the  evidence  of  A  is  lacking  for  doo,  681.  '46-^4^, 
A  omits  450^  P  omits  387,  427-429,  535,  590-591;  A  and  P  both 
have  84  118-120,  121-125,  135,  179-180,  225,  294,  321,  330,  42o- 
435    (except  that  P  omits  427-429),  473-482,  684. 

The  following  lines  show  variations  of  a  word  or  phrase:  ^6  f., 
90,  163,  166,  189,  202,  237,  253  f.,  255,  262  f.,  282,  342,  350,  373, 
374-376,'  390  f.,  586,  594,  632  f.,   640,   688. 


CHAPTER  V. 


TRINUMMUS 


The  Trinumnius  of  Plautus  is  translated,  so  the  pro- 
logue tells  lis,  from  the  ^rjcravpo^  of  Philemon.  It  is 
a  comedy  without  female  parts  (except  for  the  two 
abstractions  who  speak  the  prologue),  and  without  the 
erotic  element  which  is  so  prominent  in  other  plays  of 
Plautus.  When  the  play  opens,  the  old  man  Charmides 
has  gone  off  on  a  business  voyage,  leaving  his  daughter 
and  his  dissolute  son  in  the  care  of  his  friend  Callicles, 
with  special  instructions  that  a  treasure  buried  in  his 
house  be  kept  intact  for  the  daughter's  dowry.  In  the 
meantime,  the  son,  Lesbonicus,  goes  from  bad  to  worse,  and 
finally  advertises  his  father's  house  for  sale.  In  order 
to  preserve  the  treasure  without  betraying  the  secret, 
Callicles  buys  the  house.  Lysiteles,  a  young  man  of 
exemplary  character  and  good  family,  and  a  devoted 
friend  of  Lesbonicus,  now  sues  for  the  daughter's  hand, 
and  Callicles  feels  in  duty  bound  to  produce  the  treasure. 
So  a  rogue  is  hired  to  play  the  part  of  a  messenger  from 
Charmides,  to  bring  forged  letters  for  Lesbonicus  and 
Callicles,  and  a  sum  of  money  to  serve  as  the  daughter's 
dowry.  Unfortunately  for  the  success  of  the  scheme, 
Charmides  arrives  unexpectedly,  and  meets  the  supposed 
messenger  in  front  of  his  own  house.  But  matters  are 
explained,  Lysiteles  receives  both  bride  and  dower,  and 
Lesbonicus  is  pardoned,  on  condition  that  he  take  the 
daughter  of  Callicles  as  his  wife. 


97 


98 


KETKACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


CA.     Quid  uenis?  ^7 

ME.    Malls  te  ut  uerbis  mliltis  multum  obitirigem. 
CA.    Men?     I^IE.    Namquis    est    hie    filius    praeter    me    iitque    te? 
CA.    Xem6st.    ME.    Quid  tu  igitur   r6gita«  tene  obitirigem?     70 
Nisi  t(i  me  miMmet  censes  dicturfim  male. 

Nam  si  In  te  aegrotant  dries  antiqua6  tuae  72* 

[Sin  Immutare   uls   ingenium  m6ribus]  72 

(Aut  si  demutant  mores  ingenilim  tuom 
Neque  eos  antiquos  s^ruas,  ast  captds  nouos,) 

Omnibus  amicis   morbum   tu   incuti^s   grauem,  75 

Vt  te  uidere  audlreque  aegroti  sient. 

12  if.  Most  editors  have  taken  1.  72'  as  an  explanation 
of  1.  73,  or  an  adscript  parallel  to  it.  But  1.  73  is  per- 
fectly clear  without  explanation,  and  1.  72*"  is  too  closely 
related  to  it  in  thought  and  phrasing  to  be  merely  an 
accidental  parallel.  We  are  therefore  led  to  suspect 
the  hand  of  the  retraciator.  The  manuscript-reading  sin 
can  not  stand,  since  the  strongly  adversative  idea  which 
sin  demands  is  lacking ;  and  KitschFs  ^  emendation  sive 
is  therefore  probably  to  be  accepted.  But  Kitschl  him- 
self observed  that  the  Plautine  conjunction  was  not  sive, 
but  aut  d  (the  form  which  we  actually  find  in  1.  74), 
and  this  fact  supports  the  other  evidence  against  the 
genuineness  of  the  line.  The  next  two  lines  (73-74) 
have  been  regarded  as  due  to  dittography.  But  they  can 
not  be  simply  an  alternative  version  of  1.  72*,  for  the 
first  words  (aut  si)  are  impossible  at  the  beginning  of 
a  sentence.  Kitschl  noted  the  irregular  use  of  the  word 
mores — in  the  sense  of  "temperament "  instead  of  "  the 
(proverbially  corrupt)  morals  of  the  day,''  as  elsewhere 
in  Plautus  (cf.  11.  28  fF.,  1037,  1045,  etc.).  But  this 
criticism  applies  only  to  1.  74.     Without  this  addition, 

^Ritschl,    De    Inter polatione    Trinummi    Plautinae,    Bonn,     1844 
{=  Parerga,  pp.  513ff.)« 


TRINUMMUS 


99 


•1.  73  is  unobjectionable;  the  conjunction  aut  si  is  Plau- 
tine, and  mores  has  its  customary  meaning.  Therefore 
it  seems  probable  that  11.  72,"  74  were  inserted  as  a  more 
emphatic  substitute  for  1.  73. 

P  has  the  whole  passage. 
A  omits  72^. 


Nil   6st   profecto  sttiltius   neque   st6lidius 
Neque  m^ndaciloquiGs  neque  arguttim  magis 
Neque   c6nfidentil6quius   neque    peiifirius 
Quam  urb^ni  adsidui  clues  quos  scurrds  uocant. 


200 


200,  One  would  not  object  so  much  to  the  repetition 
in  this  passage,  were  it  not  that  mendaci-loquius  antici- 
pates the  compound  confidenti-loquius  in  the  next  verse, 
and  that  the  circumlocution  with  magis  interrupts  the 
series  of  simple  comparatives. ^  It  seems  possible  that 
the  verse  was  intended  as  a  substitute  for  1.  201. 

The  line  occurs  in  both  A  and  P,  but  in  A  has  the  reading  adeo 
argutum,  in  P  argutum  magis. 


<PH.>    Qui    homo   cum   animo   inde    Sb    ineunte   aetate   depugnfit 

sue,  305 

Vtrum  itane  esse  mfiuelit  ut  eum  finimus  aequom  c^nseat, 
An  ita  potius  fit  parentis  6um  esse  et  oognatl  uelint: 
Si  finimus  hominem  p^pulit,  actumst,  animo  seruit,  n6n  sibi: 
Si  Ipse  animum  pepullt,  dum  uiuit,  ulctor  uictorflm  cluet. 
Tfi    si    animum   uiclsti    potius   quam    finimus    te,    est    quod   gati- 

deas.  310 

Nlmio  satiust  tit  opust  te  ita  6sse  quam  ut  anim6  lubet. 
( Qui  Snimum  uincunt  qufim  quos  animus  semper  probior^s  cluent. ) 

SO 5-8 12,     Philto  is  delivering  a  sermon  on  the  text, 
^J.  Brix,  Ed.    (1879),  ad  loc. 


100 


EETEACTATIO    IN    PLATJTTTS 


"Better  is  he  that  ruleth  his  spirit."  He  generalizes 
broadly  (11.  305-309)  and  then  makes  a  personal  appli- 
cation to  the  case  of  Lysiteles  (1.  310).  After  this  he 
crives  a  weaker  turn  to  the  last  statement  (1.  311),  and 
then  returns  to  generalization  (1.  312),  repeating  mnch 
of  the  phrasing  of  1.  SIO.^'  Bergk  *  was  probably  right 
in  thinking  that  the  last  two  lines  were  an  alternative 
version  for  11.  305-310. 

The  passage  has  the  same  form  in  A  and  P. 

[PH.]    Is    probust,    quern    pa^nitet    quam    pr6bus    sit    et    frugt 

bonae :  oZ\f 

Qui  ipsus  sibi   satis   pla^^et,  nee  pr6bus  est  neo   frugt  bonae: 
Qui   Ipsus  se   cont^mnit,   in   eost   Indoles   industriae: 
Benefacta  benefSctis  aliis  p^rtegito,  ne  p^rpluant. 

S22,  Without  1.  322,  the  speech  of  Philto  makes  a 
very  neat  antithesis  (11.  320-321),  followed  by  a  line  of 
practical  application  (1.  323).  The  line  which  inter- 
venes (322)  merely  repeats  1.  320,  and  is  especially 
disturbing  because  it  returns  to  the  first  half  of  the  con- 
trast after  the  second  is  finished.^ 

The  line  occurs  in  both   A  and  P. 


PH.    Qu6i[us]  egestat^m  tolerare  uls?  loquere  audact^r  patri.  358 
<LY>   L^sbonico   huic   adulescenti,   Charmid<a>i    filio, 

Oui    lllic     habitat.     PH.    Quin    comedit    quod    fuit,     quod  n6n 

^                                                                                    fuit?  360 

/LY.>   Ne    opprobra,    pater:    mfilta    eueniunt    hdmini    quae    uolt, 
^  qua6    neuolt. 

/PHS    M^ntire   edepol,  gnSte,   atque   id  nunc   fdcis  baud   consue- 
^       '^  ttidine. 


^Ritschl,  Parerg.,  pp.  522  AT. 

^  Bergk  in  Zeitschr.  f.  Alt.  1848,  coll.  1137  f.   ( 

^Langen,  Plant.  Stud.,  pp.  374  f. 


TEINUMMUS 


101 


Nam  sapiens  quid^m  pol  ipsus  fingit  fortunam  sibi: 

E6  non  multa  qua6  neuolt  eueniunt,  nisi  fictor  malust. 

<LY.>    Mtilta  illi  opera  optist  ficturae  qui  se  fictor^m  probum     365 

Vltae  agundae  esse  ^xpetit:    sed  hie  ^dmodum  adulesc^ntulust. 

<PH.>    Non   aetate,    u6rum    ingenio    aplseitur    sapi^ntia. 

S^pienti   aetas   condimentum,    tsSpiens   aetati   cibust. 

Agedum   eloquere,   quid   dare   illi   ntinc   uis?     LY.    Nil   quicquflm, 

pater: 
TO  modo  ne  me  prohibeas  acclpere,  siquid  d6t  mihi.  370 

361  if.     The  insertion  of  1.  369  after  1.  361  probably 
indicates  the  omission  of  the  moralizing  in  11.  362-368.^ 

A   inserts   369   after   361. 
P  inserts  369,  368  after  361. 


=  Opiisc.  I.,  p.  17) 


PH.    I   hac,   L^sbonice,   m4cum,   ut  coram   nflptiis  580 

Dies  c6nstituiatur :   eadem  haec  confirm^bimus. 
<LE.>    tTu  istuc  cura  quod  iu^i:   ego  iam  hie  ero. 
Die  C^llicli  me  ut  c6nueniat.     ST.    Quin  tu  1  modo. 
LE.    De  dote  ut  uideat  quid  <o>pus  sit  facto.     ST.    I  modo. 
<LE.>    Nam    c^rtumst    sine    dote    ha<;G>d    dare.     ST.    Quin    tu    I 

modo.  585 

LE.    Neque  enim  Illi  damno  umquam  6sse  patiar  —  ST.    Abi  modo. 
<LE.>    Meam   n^glegentiam.     ST.    f    modo    to    pater 
LE.    Aequ6m    uidetur   quin   quod   peccarim  —  ST.    f   modo. 
LE.    Potlssumum  mihi  id  6psit.     ST.    I  modo.    LE.    6  pater, 
Entimquam  aspiciam  te?    ST.    I  modo,  1  modo,  I  modo. 

582.  After  Lesbonicus  has  finally  uttered  the  long- 
delayed  spondeo  which  betroths  his  sister  to  Lysiteles, 
and  Philto  has  left  the  stage,  Lesbonicus  remains  and 
resumes  the  discussion  of  the  dowry — to  the  great  disgust 
of  Stasimus.  It  is  possible  that  the  audience  may  have 
grown  impatient  too,  and  that  consequently  1.   582  was 

•Lindsay  in  Amer.  Journ.  Phil.  21    (1900),  p.  27;   cf.  Anc.  Edd., 
p.  47;   Ed.    (1905),  ad  loc. 


m 


102 


EETKACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


substituted    for    the   original   ending    of   the    scene    (11. 
583-601)/ 


A  deest  568-636. 


668 
67a 


Itast  amor  balUsta  ut  iacitur:  nil  sic  celerest  n^que  uolat: 
Atque   is   mores   h6minum  moros  6t  morosos  ^flficit. 
Minus  placet  magis  qu6d  suadetur :  qu6d  dissuadettir  placet. 
Quom  Inopiast,  cupifls:  quando  eius  copiast,  turn  non  uelis. 
(Ille  qui  aspellit,  Is  compellit:   Ille  qui  consuad6t,  uetat.) 

672,  The  suggestion  of  Bergk,^  that  1.  672  is  a  second 
version  of  1.  670,  has  been  followed  by  most  editors. 
Except  for  the  fact  that  1.  672  has  a  personal  subject, 
the  thought  of  the  two  verses  is  the  same,  and  ille  (1. 
672)  must  twice  be  scanned  either  tile  or  lll\^ 

A  deest  672-735. 


ME.    Homo  c6nducatur    aliquis   iam   quanttim   potest.  765 

[Quasi  sit  peregrinus.     CA.    Quid  is  scit  facere  p6stea?] 

Is  homo  6xornetur  grSphice  in  peregrintim  modum: 

tlgn6ta  facies  qua6  non  uisitata  sit 

(Menddcilocum  aliquem.     CA.    Quid   is    [i]scit   facere   p6stea?) 

tFalsIdicum,  confid6ntem.     CA.    Quid  tum  p6stea?  770 

765  if,  Brix  ^^  was  probably  right  in  bracketing  1. 
766  as  an  interpolation.  Quasi  sit  peregrinus  seems  to 
be  merely  an  explanation  of  1.  767  in  peregrinum  modum, 
and  quid  is  scit  facere  postea?  is  apparently  borrowed 
from  1.  769  to  fill  out  the  line.  But  1.  769  presents  a 
reasonably   certain   case   of   reiractatio.     The   objections 


*Leo,  Ed.    (1896),  ad  loc. 

"Bergk  in  Zeitschr.  f.  Alt.  1848,  col.  1141  (  =Opusc.  i.,  pp.  20  f.). 
»Cf.  Langen,  Plant.  8tud..  p.  376;  Niemeyer,  Ed.  (1907),  ad  loc. 
"Brix,  Ed.   (1879),  ad  loc.   (Brix  numbers  770). 


TRINUMMUS 


103 


which  Brix  makes  to  quid  is  scit  facere  postea?  in  1.  766 
hold  equally  for  it  here:  the  question  could  properly  be 
asked  only  when  the  man  had  already  been  found  and 
his  ability  to  carry  out  the  scheme  was  under  discussion. 
(See  Pseud.  745  for  an  instance  of  scit  properly  used  in 
a  similar  situation.)  Plautus  uses  mendaci-locus  only 
here  and  in  Trin.  200  ^^  (where,  as  we  have  seen,  it  is 
also  suspicious).  The  meaning  of  the  word  is  exactly 
the  same  as  that  of  falsi-dicus,  in  the  next  line,  and  it  is 
possible  that  the  new  compound  was  introduced  in  both 
places  (11.  200,  769)  for  the  sake  of  novelty. 

P  omits  769. 


[CA.]    Sed  epistulas  quando  opsignatas  adferet, 
[Sed  quom  obsignatas  attulerit  epistulas] 
Nonne  firbitraris  ttim  adulescentem  finuli 
Pat^rni   signum  n6sse? 


788* 
788*' 


)ab 


788''°,  The  two  lines  are  unquestionably  variants,  the 
second  giving  the  idea  "  sealed  "  a  little  more  emphati- 
cally. The  scansion  attulerlt  may  perhaps  be  explained 
as  the  lengthening  of  a  short  syllable  before  the  final 
metrum  of  the  line,^^  but  it  is  at  all  events  sufficiently 
rare  to  throw  suspicion  on  the  line.-^^ 

A  deest  774-834. 


ME.    In  hulus  modi  negotio 
Di^m  sermone[m]  t6r[r]ere  segniti^s  merast: 
Quamuls  sermones  p6ssunt  longi  t^xier. 
Abi  il<d>  then[a]saurum  idm  confestim  clSnculum. 


795 


"  The  statement  is  based  on  a  collection  of  the  adjectives  in  Plau- 
tus made  by  the  Latin  Seminary  of  Bryn  Mawr  College,  1907-1908. 
"Cf.   Lindsay,    Ed.    Capt.    (London,    1900),    Introd.,   p.   42. 
"Lindsay,  Anc.  Edd.,  p.  47;   Ed.    (1905),  ad  loc. 


104 


EETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


TRINUMMUS 


105 


796,  797,  Here  again  we  have  two  lines  which  are 
very  similar  in  meaning.  Megaronides  might  be  allowed 
to  repeat  himself  if  he  were  not  at  that  very  moment 
doing  his  best  to  put  a  stop  to  the  conversation ;  but  as  it 
is,  it  seems  probable  that  1.  796  is  a  later  version,  which 
borrows  much  of  its  phrasing  from  11.   806  f. 

A  deest. 


the  later  version  must  have  crowded  out  the  original  form 
of  the  line. 


CH.    Faciam   ita   ut  uis:    Sgedum,  nomen   tu6m   primum  memory 

mihi.  883 

<SY.>    Magnum    f acinus    incipissis    p6tere.     CH.    Quid    ita?     SY. 

Quia,  p(at<(e>r[em], 

Si  ante  lucem  tire  occipias  k  meo  primo  nomine,  885 

Coneubinm  sit   noctis   prius  quam   ad   p6stremum   peru^neris. 

CH.    6pug  tfactost  et  uidtico  ad  tuoni  nomen,  ut  tu  pra^dieas. 

<SY.>    6st   minusculum   alterum  quasi   tiuxillum  uinSrium. 

<CH.>    Qufd  est  tibi  nom6n,  adulescens?     SY.    Pfix,  id  est  nom^n 

mihi: 

Hoc  cotidianu<m>st.     CH.    Edepol  n6men  nugat6rium:  890 

Quasi    dicas,    siqufd    erediderim    tfbi,    '  pax '    periisse    Ilico. 

889-891.  These  three  verses  appear  in  P  after  1.  937. 
Meier  ^^  transposed  them  to  their  present  position,  and 
altered  the  reading  of  1.  889  to  quid  illud  est  nomen? 
The  order  of  P  is  manifestly  impossible;  the  inquiry 
about  the  name  must  follow  directly  after  1.  882,  before 
Charmides  goes  on  to  ask  about  the  sycophant's  facta  et 
itinera  (11.  893  ff.).  But  if  11.  889-891  are  preceded  by 
11.  883-888,  the  question  in  1.  889  should  be,  not  quid  est 
tihi  nomen  f  but  quid  est  alterum  nomen?  It  is  possible 
that  the  stage-manager  of  the  Eevival  used  only  11.  889- 
891,  substituting  quid  est  tibi  nomen?  for  a  question 
about  the  minusculum  alterum}^     If  this  was  the  case, 

"M.  H.  E.  Meier,  Commentatio  de  Plauti  Trinummo,  Halle,  1845, 
pp.  7  f. 
^'^Cf.  Leo,  Ed.    (1896),  ad  loc. 


P  has  889-891  after  937. 
A  deest  864-1044. 


•SY.    Hanc  me  iussit  L§sbonico  suo  gnato  dare  eplstulam         898 
6t  item  banc  alteram  suo  amico  CSllicli  iussit  dare. 
CH.    Mihi   quoque   edepol,   quom   hlc   nug[ur]atur,   c6ntra   nugarl 

lubet.  900 

^bi  ipse  erat?     SY.    Bene  r6m  gerebat.     CH.    :6rgo  ubi?     SY.    In 

Seleucia. 

CH.    Ab  ipson  istas  Sccepisti?     SY.    E  mSnibus  dedit  mi  ipse  in 

manus. 

901,  The  question  and  answer  of  1.  901  anticipate 
the  long  dialogue  (11.  928-947)  in  which  Charmides  asks 
his  own  whereabouts.  The  shorter  answer  is  really  the 
correct  one  (cf.  11.  112,  771),  but  is  for  that  very  reason 
the  less  likely  in  the  mouth  of  the  sycophant.  It  is  im- 
probable that  Charmides  would  ask  the  question  at  1.  901, 
and  then  devote  so  much  time  to  it  later,  or  that  he  would 
fail  to  comment  on  the  inconsistency  of  the  sycophant's 
two  answers.  It  is  much  more  likely  that  1.  901  repre- 
sents another  part  of  the  same  shortened  version  which 
we  find  in  11.  889-891. 

A  deest. 


CA.    Quid  hoc  hlc  clamoris  afldio  ante  aedis  meas? 

CH.    O    Collides,   o    Collides,    o    Cdllicles, 

Quallne  amico  m6a  commendaul  bona? 

CA.    Probo  ^t  fideli  et  fido  et  cum  magnS  fide: 

Et   sSlue   et  saluom  te  Sduenisse   gjatideo. 

CH.    Credo  6mnia  istaec,  si  |   itast  ut  pra^dicae. 

Sed  qufs   istest  tuos  ornfitus?     CA.    Ego  dicfim  tibi: 

Tliensafirum  effodiebam  fntus  dotem  filiae 


1093 
1095 


1100 


106 


KETRACTATIO    ITT    PLAUTUS 


Tuae  qua6  daretur.     s$d  intus  narrab6  tibi 

Et  h6c  etalia:  s^quere.     OH.    Stasime.     ST.    Hem.     CH.    Str^nue 
Curre  In  Piraeu[u]m  atque  tinum  curriculum  fa«e. 
Vid6bis   iam  illic  n^uem  qua  aduecti  sumus. 

lub^to  Sa[n]gari6nem  quae  imperauerim  HOo 

Curare  ut  efferlintur,  et  tu  it6  simul. 
Sol(itu<m>st  portit6ri  iam  port6rium. 
Nil    €st   mora<e>.     cit<o>    ambula:    a<;tuttim   redi. 
ST.    Illlc   sum    atque   hie   sum.     CA.    S^quere    tu    baxj    me   intro. 

CH.      Sequor. 

109S  ff.  The  rapidity  with  which  this  scene  draws  to 
a  close  is  equal  to  that  of  certain  scenes  in  the  Persa. 
For  the  audience,  to  be  sure,  no  explanation  of  the 
motives  of  Callicles  was  necessary,  but  it  seems  incredible 
that  Charmides  should  rest  satisfied  with  the  simple 
assurance  of  11.  1096-1097.  Leo  ^«  is  probably  right  in 
thinking  that  P  gives  only  a  shortened  version  of  the 
scene,  although  we  cannot  assume,  as  Ritschl  ^"^  did,  that 
the  passage  had  any  fuller  form  in  A.^^ 

A  deest  1079  to  end  of  play. 


ST.    Hie  m6o  ero  amicu<s>  86lus  firmus  r^stitit  1110 

Neque  d^mutauit  Snimum  de  firmfi  fide, 
Quamqufim  labores  mtiltos     *     ♦     ♦     *     ♦ 
Sed  hie  tinus  ut  ego  sfispicor,  seruSt  fidem. 
tOb  rem  laborem  eum  6go  cepisse  c^nseo. 

1110  ff.  There  seem  to  be  traces  of  two  versions  here: 
(1)  1110-1112;  (2)  1113-1114.  As  far  as  we  can  tell 
from  the  mutilated  text,  the  sense  of  the  two  passages  was 
about  the  same,  and  some  of  the  phrasing  is  repeated. 

"Leo,  Ed.   (1896),  ad  loc. 

"Ritschl,  Ed.    (1848),  Praef.,  pp.  xxv  f . 

*"  Studemund's  Apog.,  note  on  fol.  464v. 


TKINUMMUS 


107 


A  deest. 

B   marks    a    lacuna    after    multos    (1112). 

The  abundance  of  sententiae  and  moral  reflections  in 
the  Trinummus  makes  the  play  a  difficult  one  for  the 
student  of  retractatio,  A  sententious  line  would  natur- 
ally invite  every  later  poet  to  try  to  turn  the  phrases 
a  little  more  neatly.  On  the  other  hand,  even  the  origi- 
nal author  might  be  open  to  the  same  temptation,  and 
might  add  to  a  pithy  sentence  another  in  slightly  differ- 
ent form.  Indeed,  wordiness  and  repetition  are  so  char- 
acteristic of  the  moralizing  style  that  it  is  frequently 
impossible  to  say  whether  a  given  line  is  an  extension 
by  Plautus  himself  or  by  a  later  author. 

The  suspicious  passages  are  extremely  limited  in  ex- 
tent, in  no  case  covering  more  than  half  a  dozen  lines, 
and  generally  not  more  than  one  or  two.  The  majority 
are  concentrated  in  certain  scenes,  especially  II.,  2  and 
III.,  3.  Of  the  possible  variant  lines,  most  are  of  the 
moralizing  type:  200,  311-312,  322,  672.  Dittography 
also  seems  to  be  present  in  11.  796  f.,  1110  ff. ;  and  almost 
certainly  exists  in  11.  72  if.,  769  f.,  788"'.  The  transpo- 
sition of  1.  369  seems  to  indicate  the  omission  of  a 
passage,  and  11.  582,  889-891,  901  are  probably  intended 
to  furnish  substitutes  for  lengthy  scenes.  It  is  probable 
that  at  11.  1093  if.  only  the  shortened  version  is  pre- 
served.^^ 


"The  following  lines  have  also  been  suspected:  6-7,  18-21,  60,  64, 
92,  93,  126,  206-209,  223  ff.,  231-232,  248-249,  263,  321,  368,  414-415, 
420-424,  427^  470,  471,  527-528,  562-568,  587-589,  660  ff.,  702,  707- 
708,  756-762,  764,  792,  808-814,  816,  831,  852,  857-860,  872,  929  ff., 
980,  982,   1005,   1033,   1043-1045,   1053-1054,    1130-1131,   1164-1166. 

The  evidence  of  A  is  lacking  for  126,  587-589,  702,  707-708,  792, 
808-814,  816,  831,  872,  929  ff.,  980,  982,  1005,  1033,  1043-1045,  1130- 


IQ^  KETKACTxYTIO    IN    PLATJTUS 

Unfortunately  the  Trinummns  affords  slight  opportu- 
nity for  a  comparison  of  the  manuscript-tradition.     In 
several  of  the  most  certain  cases  of  retractaUo,  sheet, 
are  missing  from  the  Palimpsest,   and  it  is  impossible 
to  calculat:  their  contents.     In  most  of  the  o  hers,  the 
reading  of  the  two  families  of  manuscripts  is  the  same. 
At  11.  361  fi.,  where  both  A  and  P  indicate  an  omission, 
P  has -transposed  one  more  line  than  A.     A  omits  1.  7.  , 
though  it  gives  the  remainder  of  the  suspicious  passage, 
and  P  omits  1.  769,  which  is  almost  certainly  a  later 
addition.     But  on  the  whole,  where  we  can  compare  A 
and  P,  the  testimony  of  the  Trinummns  strongly  supports 
the  theory  that  the  two  families  of  manuscripts  had  a 
common  origin. 


1131  1164-1166.  The  rest  of  the  passages  are  preserved  in  both 
i  and  P  6-7  18-21,  60,  64,  92,  93,  206-209,  223  ff.,  231-232  248- 
249  '>63  321  (preserved  in  B,  but  omitted  in  the  other  Palatine 
Ll'scripts).  368  (in  different  order),  414-415,  420-4f ,  427Mm 
different  order),  470,  471,  527-528,  562-568  (except  that  Ade^t 
568ff.),    660ff.,    756-762,    764    (in    different    order),    852,    857-860, 

1053-1054.  Q^    „,. 

Tlie  following  lines  show  minor  variations:    52,  61,  70,   l«b,  Zi4, 
238,   256,   328,   339,   351,   537,   660,   842,    1064,   1069,    1078. 


coisrcLusioN 

The  five  plays  which  have  been  discussed  in  detail 
show  a  marked  difference  both  in  the  amount  and  in  the 
kind  of  retractatio  that  they  present.  By  far  the  most 
extensive  changes,  as  well  as  the  greatest  number  of  cer- 
tain examples  of  retractatio,  occur  in  the  Poenulus.  In 
this  play  we  find  a  secondary  ending  of  about  forty  lines ; 
two  passages,  each  of  which  shows  three  parallel  ver- 
sions ;  and  numerous  others  which  present  two  parallels. 
The  Persa  seems  to  have  suffered  shortening,  and  to  have 
preserved  only  the  shortened  version  of  certain  scenes. 
The  Stichus  has  several  alternative  versions,  only  one  of 
which  is  of  any  length,  and  a  few  small  additions.  The 
changes  in  the  Pseudolus  and  the  Trinummus  are  for 
the  most  part  confined  to  single  lines.  It  is  evident, 
therefore,  that  theories  about  the  general  problem  of 
retractatio  should  be  based,  not  on  a  few  selected  cases, 
or  even  on  all  the  cases  in  a  single  play,  but  on  the  whole 
body  of  text. 

However,  even  the  study  of  five  plays  has  led  to  some 
general  conclusions.  It  appears  that,  on  the  whole,  the 
retractatores  made  no  very  important  contributions  to 
our  text.  Even  in  the  second  ending  of  the  Poenulus 
they  used  to  a  large  extent  material  that  Plautus  had 
supplied,  and  in  other  cases  their  debt  to  him  was  even 
greater.  Pers.  722-734  is  a  patchwork  of  Plautine 
phrases,  and  Pseud.  406-408  is  borrowed  directly  from 
the  next  scene.  The  later  poets  often  seem  to  have  con- 
tented themselves  with  making  slight  changes  in  phras- 
ing, either  to  improve  upon  the  original  form  of  a  line 

109 


no 


KETEACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


{Pers.  704;  Trin,  788^  Sticlu  158^)  or  to  give  a  more 
modern  turn  to  an  old  phrase  {Poen,  390';  Pers, 
442  f.).  The  alternative  versions  sometimes  have  the 
effect  of  shortening  the  scene,  and  once,  at  least  (>S^^ic/i. 
48-57),  there  is  a  change  in  order  to  dispense  with  mu- 
sical accompaniment.  Occasionally  a  transposition  indi- 
cates that  a  wordy  passage  was  to  be  omitted  {Poen. 
622^  Stich,  160  ff.;  Trin.  361  ff.)-  Such  shortenings 
by  means  of  simple  omission  generally  occur  in  the  body 
of  the  scene;  alternative  versions  which  are  intended  to 
shorten  a  scene  most  often  occur  near  the  end  {Pers. 
666  ff.;  Poen,  805;  Sticli,  668  ff. ;  Trin,  582). 

The   chief  object  of   this   investigation,   however,   has 
been  to  determine  as  far  as  possible  the  relation  of  the 
Ambrosian  and  Palatine  recensions  to  the  phenomenon 
of  retractatio,     New  light  has  been  thrown  upon  this 
question  by  a  study  of  the  five  plays  in  which  the  Ambro- 
sian  Palimpsest   is   best   represented— for   any   solution 
must  rest  primarily  upon  the  evidence  of   these  plays. 
The    discussion   has    taken    up    altogether    66    cases    of 
retractatio.''     In  17  of  these  66  cases,  the  evidence  of 
the  Palimpsest  is  absolutely  lacking :  Pers.  460  f . ;  Poen. 
98-100;    118-120;    121-128;    214-215;    217-219;    622^ 
805-808;   Stick.    710  f.;    Trin.    582;    672;    788'^    796- 
797 ;  889-891 ;  901 ;  1093  ff. ;  1110  ff.     We  are  therefore 
reduced  to  49  passages  on  which  to  base  our  conclusions. 

^This  summary  includes  only  certain  or  fairly  probable  cases  of 
retractatio.  Pers.  467-468;  Poen.  930-939;  Stick.  208^  are  excluded, 
since  the  difficulty  in  these  passages  is  probably  not  to  be  charged 
to  retractatio,  and  the  passages  listed  in  foot-notes  under  each  play 
are  omitted  as  well.  In  the  summary,  the  Double  Ending  of  the 
Poenulm  (11.  1315-1422)  counts  as  a  single  ease,  but  two  additional 
oases  are  listed  from  the  same  portion  of  the  play  (11.  1315  flf.; 
1331). 


CONCLCJSION 


111 


Of  these  49,  we  find  15  preserved  (aside  from  slight 
verbal  differences)  in  exactly  the  same  form  in  A  and  P: 
Pers.  704 ;  Poen.  917-929  ;  1162  ff. ;  Pseud.  166 ;  210-224 ; 
3851;  406-408;  688  ff. ;  1137;  1214-1216;  Stick.  167- 
170 ;  174  ff. ;  Trin.  200 ;  305-312 ;  322.  In  6  other  cases 
it  is  probable  that  A,  if  preserved,  would  give  the  passage 
in  the  same  form  as  P.  These  are  cases  in  which  the 
Palimpsest  breaks  off  after  giving  part  of  a  suspicious 
passage,  or  else,  even  though  the  text  is  entirely  missing 
from  A,  calculation  makes  it  probable  that  A  had  the 
same  form  as  P:  Pers.  440  ff. ;  738  ff. ;  Poen.  504-575; 
1315-1422;  Pseud.  1079-1086;  Stick.  668  ff.  Also,  at 
Poen.  389  and  1333  ff.  (the  latter  passage  discussed 
under  1315  ff.),  though  A  has  at  first  omitted  one  or 
more  lines,  part  of  the  verse  or  the  passage  in  question 
is  added  between  the  lines  or  in  the  margin,  showing  that 
somewhere  in  the  A-family  the  passage  was  given  in  full 
form.  Altogether,  then,  we  find  23  cases  in  which  the 
text-tradition  of  the  A-family  and  the  P-family  is  virtu- 
ally the  same. 

Of  the  remaining  26  cases,  some  show  differences  in 
the  amount  of  text  preserved,  others  in  order  only,  and 
a  few  differ  both  in  amount  and  in  order.  There  are, 
in  all,  8  instances  in  which  A  shows  evidences  of  retrac- 
tatio not  found  in  P :  Poen.  706  ff.  (the  insertion  of  730 
after  706,  707,  720,  indicating  a  further  omission)  ;  1331 
(an  alternative  for  1330) ;  Stick.  441-445  (an  addition 
modeled  on  11.  641-648)  ;  Trin.  769  (a  variant  for  770) ; 
and,  less  certain  cases:  Pseud.  67"  (an  addition  to  1.  64)  ; 
573"  (likewise  an  addition)  ;  Stick.  160  ff.  and  208  ff. 
(transpositions  to  indicate  omission).  On  the  other  hand, 
P  presents  5  cases  of  retractatio  of  which  there  is  no 


112 


EETRACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


trace  in  X:  Pseud.  523^  '  and  Stick.  48-57,  both  undoubted 
examples  of  later  versions;  and  also  Poen.  1378-1381 
(a  proposed  shortening);^  Pseud.  696^  (an  addition); 
and  1205-1207   (a  shortening). 

We   also  find   a  number  of   instances   in  which  both 
families  of  manuscripts  give  a  parallel  version  or  a  short- 
ened scene-ending,  but  one  or  the  other  omits  some  of  the 
lines.     In  such  cases  it  must,  of  course,  be  assumed  that 
the  whole  passage  originally  stood   in  that  family,   but 
that  in  some  way  (perhaps  through  errors  due  to  homoeo- 
ieleuton  or  homoeokatarUon,  or  through  other  forms  ol 
carelessness  in  transcribing)   part  of  it  was  lost.     Thus 
in  Pers.  605-610,  P  omits  608  (a  genuine  line)  and  610 
(part  of  the  later  version)  ;  666  ff.,  P  omits  67f ;  722-734, 
P  omits  730;  Poen.  1042-1053,  P  gives  1053  only  once, 
whereas  A  gives  it  twice;  Stich.  483-485,  P  has  only  the 
spurious  version,  A  has  both.     Against  these  5  passages 
in  which  A  gives  the  fuller  form  can  be  ranged  2  m  which 
P  is  more  complete:  Stich.  157  ff.,  in  which  A  gives  only 
one  (probably  the  substitute)  version  for  the  second  line 
of  the  couplet,  whereas  P  has  both  (but  omits  the  first 
verse  of  the  couplet)  ;  and  Trin,  72  ff.,  in  which  A  omits 

72'. 

In  3  of  the  cases  just  mentioned  (Pers.  666  ff. ;  Poen. 
706  ff.;  1042-1053)  there  is  a  difference  in  the  order  of 
the  lines  as  well  as  in  their  number.  There  are  also  6 
passages  which  show  the  same  text  in  A  and  P,  arranged 
in  different  order:  Poen.  300-305;  the  prologue  of  the 
Pseudolus  (which  appears  in  a  different  position  in  the 
two  families)  ;  Trin.  361  ff.  (in  which  P  transposes  368 
as  well  as  369)  ;  and,  in  addition  to  these  fairly  certain 

2  The  contents  of  A  are  calculated. 


CONCLUSION 


113 


cases,  others  which  are  less  sure:  Poen.  1267-1268; 
Pseud.  151-156;  Stich.  75-83. 

On  the  whole,  the  difference  between  the  two  families 
of  manuscripts  in  the  amount  of  retractatio  preserved 
is  slight.  In  23  cases  out  of  49,  A  and  P  seem  to  show 
the  same  text-tradition.  In  6  additional  cases,  the  only 
difference  is  in  the  order  of  the  lines.  A  has  8  cases  of 
retractatio  which  P  does  not  give,  and  P  has  5  which  A 
does  not  give.  In  5  cases,  though  both  families  of  manu- 
scripts show  traces  of  retractatio^,  A  gives  more  text; 
in  2,  P  has  the  fuller  form.  The  few  differences  that 
exist  indicate,  not  that  A  presents  the  "  ipsa  verba  "  of 
Plautus,  and  P  the  "  Eevival  text,"  but  that  A,  as  the 
older  manuscript,  has  kept  more  of  the  "  Revival  "  altera- 
tions than  P.  We  are  therefore  forced  to  the  conclusion 
that  the  source  of  A  and  P  was  the  same;  that  the  two 
families  had  originally  about  the  same  amount  of  re- 
tractatio, but  that,  in  the  course  of  centuries,  some  lines 
and  passages  have  dropped  out ;  the  Palatine  manuscripts, 
being  the  later,  have  naturally  lost  more  than  the  Am- 
brosian  Palimpsest. 

When  we  try  to  account  for  the  omission  of  a  passage 
in  one  family  of  manuscripts  and  its  transmission  in 
another,  for  the  confused  order  of  half  a  dozen  lines,  or 
the  mutilation  of  a  substitute  passage,  we  find  the  most 
satisfactory  explanation  in  Oskar  Seyffert's  theory  that 
at  one  time  in  the  history  of  the  common  archetype  the 
passages  due  to  the  Plautine  Revival  were  adscribed  in 
the  margin,  ^ot  only  is  the  complete  loss  of  certain 
passages  easier  to  understand  on  this  hypothesis ;  but  the 
disappearance  of  single  lines  like  Pers.  610,  Trin.  72*, 
is  intelligible,  if  we  assume  that  the  whole  passage  once 
stood  in  the  margin  and  was  introduced  from  there  into 

8 


114 


EETEACTATIO    IN    PLAUTUS 


the  text.  It  sometimes  happens,  too,  that  the  spurious 
passage  is  preserved  in  full,  but  that,  in  being  taken  into 
the  text,  it  has  crowded  out  a  genuine  line  {Stich.  157 
in  P,  and  probably  Pers.  668  in  A). 

Confusion  in  the  order  of  lines  may  have  arisen  in  the 
same  way.  Twice  a  substitute  passage  has  been  inserted 
in  the  wrong  place  in  both  A  and  P :  Pers.  442  f . ;  Pseud. 
385  f. ;  and  twice  (in  portions  of  the  text  for  which  A 
is  missing)  P  has  put  an  alternative  version  in  the  wrong 
position:  Trin.  889-891;  901.  The  differences  of  order 
in  A  and  P  {Poen.  300-305 ;  Pseud.  151-156 ;  Stich.  75- 
83)  also  point  to  variants  which  were  written  in  the 
margin  and  were  taken  into  the  text  at  different  points. 

This  investigation  of  retradatio  in  five  plays  of  Plau- 
tus  therefore  supports  the  view  that  the  Ambrosian 
Palimpsest  and  the  Palatine  manuscripts  were  descended 
from  a  common  archetype;  that  substitute  versions  were 
written  in  the  margin  of  this  archetype;  and  that  the 
introduction  of  these  marginal  adscripts  into  the  text  was 
responsible  for  the  omission  of  whole  passages  and  of 
single  lines,  for  differences  in  order,  and  for  confusion 
in  the  genuine  text  of  Plautus. 


BIBLIOGKAPHY 


EDITIONS   OF  PLAUTU8 

GOETZ,  G.,  F.  ScHOELL,  and  G.  Loewe — Ed.  Mai.,  Leipzig,  1871-1894. 
GoETZ,  G.,  and  F.   Schoell — ^Ed.  Min.,  Leipzig,   1892-1896    (revised 

1904-1909). 
Leo,  F. — Berlin,   1885    (incomplete). 
Leo,   F.— Berlin,   1895-1896. 
Lindsay,  W.  M.— Oxford,  1904-1905. 
EiTSCHL,   F. — Begun  in   1848    (incomplete). 
Ubsinq — Copenhagen,  1875-1892. 

GENERAL  LITERATURE 

Baieb,  B. — De  Plauti  Fahula/rum  Recenmonihiis  Amhrosiana  et  Palo- 

tina   Oommentatio   Critica,   Breslau,    1885. 
Bebok,  Th. — Reviews  of  Ritschl's  editions,  in  Opusc.  I.,  pp.  3-53. 
Bbachmann,  W. — De  Bacchidum  Plautinae  Retractatione  8caenica, 

in  Leipz.  Stud.  3   (1880),  pp.  59-187. 
DziATZKO,    K. — De    Prologis    Plautinis    et    Terentianis    Qudestiones 

Selectae,  Bonn,  1863. 

Cher  die  plautinischen  Prologe,  Luzem,  1866-1867. 

GoETZ,  G. — Dittographien  im  Plautustexte,  in  Acta  soc.  phil.  Lips. 

6  (1876),  pp.  235-326. 

Gbauebt,  W.  H. — Historische  und  philologische  Analekten,  Munster, 

1833. 
Kellebman,    H. — De   Plauto   Sui   Imitator e,    in    Comm.    phil.   Jen. 

7  (1903),  pp.   129-197. 

Ladewig,  Th. — Zum  Epidicus  des  Plautus,  in  Zeitschrift  fiir  Alter- 

tumsioissenschaft,  1841,  coll.  1079-1099. 

Oher  den  Kanon  des  Volcatiu^  Sedigitu^,  Neustrelitz,  1842. 

' Einleitungen  und  Anmerkungen  zu  plautinischen  Lustspielen,  in 

Rhein.   Mus.   3    (1845),    pp.    179-205;    520-540. 


*A  selected  list  of  the  books  and  articles  which  have  been  most 
helpful  in  the  preparation  of  this  dissertation.  Authorities  for 
minor  points  are  given  in  the  foot-notes. 

115 


^ 


116 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


A    and    P^, 


Ladewig,  TK,—Plautinische  Studien,  in  Philol.  17   (1861),  pp.  248 

269;  452-480. 
Langen,   p. — Plautinische  Studien,  Berlin,   1886. 
Leo,    Y.— Plautinische    Forschungen,    Berlin,    1895. 
Lindsay,    W.    M. — Th£    Tioo    Recensions    of    Plautus, 

in  Amer.  Journ.  Phil.  21    (1900),  pp.  23-37. 

The   Ancient  Editions   of   Plautus,   Oxford,    1904. 

OSANN,   F.—Analecta   Critica,   Berlin,    1816. 

Reinhabdt,   L.— De  Retractatis  Fahulis  Plautinis,   in   Studemunds 

Studien  auf  dem  Gehiete  des  archaischen  Lateins  i.,  Berlin, 

1873,   pp.   79-111. 
RiTSCHL,    F.—Parerga   Plautina   et    Terentiana,    Leipzig,    1845. 
Parallelstellen  im  Plautus  als  Ursache  von  Glossemen,  in  Opusc. 

II.,   pp.   274-291. 
Seyffert,  O. — Studia  Plautina,  Berlin,   1874. 
Zur    Oherlieferungsgeschichte    der    Komodien    des    Plautus,    in 

Berl  Phil  Woch.  16   (1896),  coll.  252-255;  283-288. 
Sicker,   E.— Novae   Quaestiones  Plautinae,  in  Philol.   Suppl-Bd.    11 

(1908),   pp.    179-252. 
SoNNENSCHEiN,   E.—Thc   Scientific   Emendation   of   Classical   Texts, 

in  Trans.  Amer.  Phil.  Ass.  24    (1893),  pp.  5-16. 
Spengel,   A.—T.   Maccius   Plautus,   Gottingen,    1865. 
Studemund,  W.—Zur  Kritik  des   Plautus,  in  Festgruss  der  philo- 

logischen  Gesellschaft  zu  Wurzhurg,  Wiirzburg,  1868,  pp.  38-76. 
y.    Macci    Plauti    Fahularum    Reliquiae    Amhrosianae,    Berlin, 

1889. 
Teuffel,  W.— studien  zu  den  romischen  Komikern,  in  Studien  und 
Charakteristiken,^  Leipzig,  1889,  pp.  315-352. 

PERSA 

VAN  IJSENDIJK,  A.— De  T.  Macci  Plauti  Persa,  Utrecht,   1884. 
Meyeb,  M.— De  Plauti  Persa,  in  Comm.  phil.  Jen.   8    (1907),  pp. 

145-191. 
V.    WiLAMOWiTZ-MoELLENDOBF,    U.— De    Trihus   Carminihus   Latinis, 
in  Index  schol.  Gott.  1893-1894,  pp.   13-26. 

P0ENULU8 

Bbachmann,  W. — De  Bacchidum  Plautinae  Retractatione  Scaenica, 
in  Leipz.  Stud.  3    (1880),  pp.  73-79. 


BIBLIOGEAPHY 


117 


Fbancken,  C.  M. — De  Poenuli  Plautinae  Compositions,  in  Mnem.  4 

(1876),  pp.    146-175. 
GOETZ,    G. — De   Compositione    Poenuli    Plautinae    Commentariolum, 

Jena,    1883. 
Haspeb,  Th. — De  Poenuli  Plautinae  Duplici  Exitu,  Leipzig,   1868. 
Kabsten,  H.  T. — De  Compositione  Poenuli,  in   Mnem.  29    (1901), 

pp.    363-387. 
Lanqbehb,  G. — De  Plauti  Poenulo,  Friedland,  1883. 
Legband,     Ph.-E. — Pour    Vhistoire    de    la    Com^die    Nouvelle,    4. 

U original    du    Poenulus    de    Plaute,    in    Revue    des    Etudes 

Grecques    16    (1903),    pp.    358-374. 
Reinhabdt,   L. — De  Retractatis  Fahulis   Plautinis  in   Studemund's 

Studien  auf  dem  Gehiete  des  archaischen  Lateins  i.,  Berlin, 

1873,  pp.   109-111. 
ScHUETH,  K. — De  Poenulo  Plautina  Quaestiones  Criticae,  Bonn,  1883. 

PSEUD0LU8 

BiEBMA,  J.  W. — Quaestiones  De  Plautina  Pseudolo,  Groningen,  1897. 
Kabsten,   H.   T. — De   Plauti  Pseudolo,   in   Mnem.   31    (1903),    pp. 

130-156. 
KiESSLiNQ,  A. — Plautinische  Miscellenen,  in  Symhola  Philologorum 

Bonnensiwn,  pp.   835-839,  Leipzig,   1863-1867. 
Zur    Kritik    und    Erkldrung    des    plautinischen    Pseudolus,    in 

Rhein.    Mus.    23     (1868),    pp.    411-426. 
Leo,    F. — Vber   den   Pseudolus    des   Plautus,   in   Nachr.    Gott.    Ges. 

1903,   pp.   347-354. 
LoBENZ,  A.  0.  F. — Zum  Pseudolus  des  Plautus,  in  Philol.  35  (1876), 

pp.   153-180. 

Ed.,  Berlin,  1876. 

NoBDEN,  E. — Sprachliche  Beohachtungen  zu  Plautus,  in  Rhein.  Mus. 

49    (1894),   pp.    197-203. 
Sauppe,  H. — Quaestiones  Plautinae,  in  Index  schol.  Gott.  1858-1859. 
Schmidt,   F. — Bemerkungen  zum  Pseudolus   des   PlautUrS,   in   Misc. 

phil.    Gott.    1876,   pp.   20-31. 
Schmitt,    a. — De   Pseudoli   Plautinae   exemplo   Attico,    Strassburg, 

1909. 
UsENEB,   H. — Pseudoli  Plautinae  Scaena  Secunda,  in  Index  Schol. 

Gryphiswald.,  1866. 

STICHUS 

Leo,  F. — Vher  den  Stichus  des  Plautus,  in  Nachr.  Gott.  Ges.  1902, 
pp.  375-391. 


118 


BIBLIOGBAPHT 


TRINUMMUS 


Brix,  J.— Ed.,  Leipzig,   1879. 

——Edition  revised  by  M.  Niemeyer,  Leipzig,  1907. 

RiBBBCK,  O.—Zu  Plautua'  Trmummus,  in  JRhein.  Mus.  27    (1872), 

pp.   177-180. 
RiTSCHL,   F.— De  Jnterjiolatione   Trmummi  Plautvnae,   m   Parerga, 

pp.   509-579. 
Teuffel,  W.—Zu  Plautus'  Trinummus,  in  Rhein.  Mus.  30   (1875), 

pp.  472-475;    632-633. 
Vahlen,  J.—yoria,  in  Hermes   16    (1880),  pp.   257-259. 


